Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence through indisposition ofMr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, asDEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALKIRK BURGH EXTENSION &C. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered upon Tuesday, 3rd April.

PETITION

COAL MINING, ASTLEY

Sir John Mellor: I desire to present a Petition from certain of my constituents. It is the humble Petition of the Vicar and parishioners of Astley in the County of Warwick, and others; and it bears 176 signatures. The Petition states that the National Coal Board designs to extract coal from under Astley Church; that the subsidence resulting therefrom would imperil the structure of this ancient church; that the works proposed by the Board, for the mitigation of damage, include the severance of the tower from the nave; that such works would require the removal at great risk, of the painted stalls, which have remained undisturbed for 300 years; and would preclude the normal use of the church for a long period; and that Astley Church, by reason of its antiquity and beauty, is a national monument.
The Petition concludes with the Prayer:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the National Coal Board be restrained from proceeding to work the coal beneath Astley Church and from causing damage thereto. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Film Technician

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the man about whom the hon. And gallant Member for Chelsea wrote to him on 5th March is still unemployed; and what steps he is taking to help this man find employment in his trade of film technician.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): When Mr. Lowe was interviewed at London Appointments Office on 21st February he wished to be considered for any suitable employment, not necessarily in the film industry, and he is registered for a trainee executive post. No suitable vacancy has been notified in the short period that has since elapsed.

Commander Noble: Does the Minister realise that this man is up against a brick wall because there is, first, a closed shop in the film industry, and, second, he is refused admission to the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians, and, therefore, cannot compete for this employment?

Mr. Lee: My Ministry does not intervene in agreements between employers and trade unions. Intervention would not, I think, be strictly in accordance with the neutrality which we try to observe in these fields. From the lack of complaints of this type that have come to my knowledge, I should not have thought that it was merely a question of the closed shop. It is quite possible that there are differences between Mr. Lowe and the union. I do not know the background, but I should not have thought, from the general lack of complaints I have had from this industry, that it was a question of a closed shop.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled men and women were awaiting training at the last available date.

Mr. Lee: On 19th February, 372 disabled men and women were awaiting allocation to training courses.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the Minister arrange that the unions give tickets to these people when they are trained to enable them to practise their trade?

Mr. Lee: I understand that the unions are willing to do everything in their power to help in this matter.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour by what methods disablement rehabilitation officers are informed of the possibilities and vacancies for the training of disabled men and women at St. Loyes College, Exeter, and Queen Elizabeth's College, Leatherhead.

Mr. Lee: Disablement rehabilitation officers have been fully informed of the facilities available at these two very important establishments for training the severely disabled, and they are kept informed of current training vacancies by means of regular monthly and other circulars and memoranda.

Mr. Wood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of the unemployed disabled men and women he mentions are unaware of the facilities and possibilities of training at these colleges, even though the training would be of great benefit to them? Would he make quite certain that in these cases the D.R.O.'s inform the unemployed disabled of the possibilities there?

Mr. Lee: I will certainly see that that is done. My impression, from the very high numbers who occupy places available at these two colleges, is that, generally speaking, there is adequate knowledge of the facilities in them; but I will certainly have a look at the point which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, at present in sheltered employment, have undergone courses of training at St. Loyes College, Exeter, and Queen Elizabeth's College, Leatherhead.

Mr. Lee: Complete information is not available, but of those sponsored by my Department who have undergone training at St. Loyes College, Exeter, and Queen Elizabeth's College, Leatherhead, including the needlecraft section in London, there are eight (five men and three women) and 11 (10 men and one woman) respectively who are now in sheltered employment in these undertakings.

Mr. Wood: Would the hon. Gentleman not consider that it might be of great assistance to the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation if some of their employees could have the benefit of the excellent training afforded by the two colleges before they go to Remploy?

Mr. Lee: There may be people who find their way into such employment without necessarily coming from the Ministry of Labour, but, again, I will look into the point the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Dentists, Rother Valley

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Education how many school dentists are employed for the school population in the Rother Valley area, part- or full-time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): There is no school dentist at present in this area, but emergency treatment is available at the dental clinic at Rawmarsh.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are over 12,000 school children in this area, and that for a considerable time there has been no dentist at all? Is it not possible for him to get a dentist for at least one day per week for these schools?

Mr. Hardman: In the past this area has been served by a visiting dentist with portable equipment. I am not suggesting for one moment that this represents all we should give. I am, however, surprised at the figure my hon. Friend gives of some 12,000 children unserved by the dental service in his area. The nearest estimate I have is a figure of 8,000, but I quite agree that something must be done about the matter.

School Dinners

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Education the net cost per head of school dinners borne by public funds when the charge is increased to 7d.; what was the net cost when the charges were 6d. and 4d., respectively: what were the estimated numbers served at each charge; and how many free dinners were served.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend cannot, at this early stage, attempt to give an estimate of the average net cost per head of school dinners for 1951–52. Up to January, 1950, the charge varied, but was usually 5d. In 1949–50, 573 million dinners were served at an average net cost to public funds of 9.26d. per meal after allowing for meals supplied free or at a reduced charge. In 1950–51, it is estimated that the number of dinners served will be 552 million at an average net cost of approximately 9.9d. per meal. His returns do not enable him to say how many free dinners were served, but on single days in October, 1949 and 1950, 297,000 and 292,000 children respectively received free dinners.

Sir Waldron Smithers: What is the total cost on an annual basis of these dinners at 9¾d. each, or thereabouts, over and above what is paid by the parents?

Mr. Hardman: The net cost is £25 million per annum; the amount that is collected in payment for dinners is £11½ million.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the monetary cost, for the value this is to the children it is well worth it?

Mr. Hardman: I quite agree.

Canteen Facilities, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education how many schools under the control of the Cornwall Education Committee lack canteen facilities; and how many scholars attend these schools.

Mr. Hardman: Sixty-eight schools or departments, attended by 4,467 pupils.

Mr. Hayman: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to hasten the provision of canteens in these schools?

Mr. Hardman: I certainly will, though I must point out that there have been rather exceptional difficulties in this area, of which I know my hon. Friend is aware.

Supplementary Teachers

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education how many supplementary teachers were employed in primary schools in England and Wales; and how
many in Cornwall at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Hardman: On 31st March, 1950, the latest date for which information is available, 1,789 supplementary teachers were employed in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. Of those, 33 were employed in Cornwall. Separate figures are not available for primary schools.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the good work done by these unrecognised teachers, often in country schools where qualified teachers are not available, will my hon. Friend do what he can to see that local education authorities give them increases in salary equivalent to the increases granted to other teachers under the Burnham scale?

Mr. Hardman: I will bear that point in mind.

Schoolchildren (Employment)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education how many county council local education authorities in 1950 refused to sanction the release of schoolchildren for employment in agriculture; and how many sanctioned exemptions.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the abuse of the labour of schoolchildren which occurs, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friends the Ministers of Education and Agriculture to ensure that this year sees the end of this concession for children to work in school time?

Mr. Hardman: This matter has been a hardy annual for some time. Preliminary discussions have taken place, and my hon. Friend knows well what the present position is in agriculture.

Mr. Hollis: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a few weeks ago the Minister of Education told me that he hoped to be consulted about this matter? Can he tell us whether his hopes have been realised?

Mr. Hardman: As I understand it— and I have been at these consultations myself —consultations take place year by year.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has there been any consultation with the children, who are the ones most interested in this subject?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir. I have consulted many children upon this subject,


and I have found—as was certainly my experience at school—that they all seem to enjoy it very much.

Mr. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cornwall was one of the counties where children were exempted wholesale in years gone by and is now a county which does not operate a scheme? Will he take that into account as a factor towards abolishing this concession altogether?

Sir H. Williams: It is not a concession.

Mr. Hardman: I am certainly prepared to take into account that what comes first is the education of the children.

Technological Education (Report)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the adverse criticism in the national and technical Press and elsewhere of the recommendations of the Report of the National Advisory Council on the Future Development of Higher Technological Education, he will publish the comments which, in response to his invitation in the foreword, he has received on the Report.

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider that decision? Is he not aware that the comment on and criticism of the proposals of this Report is very widespread, especially among professional bodies; and in view of the desire of all concerned to reach the right conclusion, will he not reconsider that decision?

Mr. Hardman: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the debate upon this subject which begins in this House at two o'clock today.

Mr. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that debate will be of a very limited character and for a very short time, and that it seems unlikely that all points of view can be put today; is he also aware that when the final decision is made we should be most obliged if we could have this information?

Mr. Hardman: Certainly.

Mr. George Craddock: In view of the importance of technological training,

especially in our highly organised industrial cities, will the Minister give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Hardman: As I have said there will be a debate on this subject later today.

Schools, Liverpool (Political Propaganda)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Education what action he intends to take with reference to the decision of the Liverpool Education Committee in allowing the schools to be used as a medium for party political propaganda, details of which have been supplied to him.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend deprecates the decision of the Liverpool local education authority to which the hon. Member refers, but his inquiries do not support her suggestion that the schools are being used as a medium for indoctrinating their pupils with party political views.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the use of the facilities in schools to promote Tory political propaganda is seriously deprecated by the organised trade union and Labour movement in Liverpool: and will he intimate that to the local education authority?

Mr. Hardman: I would certainly intimate it to the local education authority. In fact, I think that an intimation has already been made to them. I would add that, on grounds of good education, I deprecate propaganda of any kind in schools.

Mr. John Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter was passed by the City Council, and that the Liverpool Advisory Industrial Council is a non-political organisation? Would he not favour the youth of this country learning, in debate, the value of the history of the enterprise and spirit of the merchant adventurers who made the British Empire?

Mr. Hardman: One could, of course, take the view that even the Liverpool education authority could make mistakes. I would myself deprecate the holding of speaking competitions among adolescent children.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the hon. Gentleman say, and if he cannot will he find out, how many Communist teachers there


are who are using their professional position to further Communist propaganda?

Mr. Hardman: I have no idea.

Sir W. Smithers: Then the hon. Gentleman ought to find out.

Miss Bacon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although this might have been sanctioned by the Liverpool City Council, the subject was of a party political nature; and will he take action to see that this does not occur either in Liverpool or in any other area?

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend has already informed the authority responsible that he deprecates the holding of these competitions, which have a political flavour. The subject under discussion in this instance was "The benefits conferred on the community by private enterprise."

Teachers (Religious Knowledge)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Education what percentage of those training at county council training colleges for teachers take the course on religion.

Mr. Hardman: About 45 per cent, of all the students in training colleges provided by local education authorities are taking a course in religious knowledge as part of their regular course of training.

Mr. Williams: May I say that that is very much better than I thought it was, and may I express the hope that, as the teaching of religion in schools is compulsory, the Minister will take steps to encourage teachers to take courses on how to teach religion?

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend gives every encouragement to this subject.

Schoolgirls, Essex (Make-up)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Education if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Essex Education Committee that secondary school teachers in that county may instruct girls in the use of make-up; and if he will circularise local educational authorities to the effect that this subject should not be included in the curriculum.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend is aware of this matter, but it is not his

general practice to interfere with the curriculum offered by the schools.

Wing Commander Bullus: Would the hon. Gentleman deny that it is the policy of the Minister to displace the three Rs the three Ps—paint, powder and polish?

Mr. Hardman: I think that courses or lessons of any kind in good grooming are of great value not only to boys, but to girls. I hope, as far as the girls are concerned, that what make-up they use is of a durable quality.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the materials for this instruction are provided from public funds?

Sir H. Williams: They have not paid Purchase Tax on them.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education when he hopes to make a statement concerning the new salary scales of agricultural teachers and teachers in farm institutes.

Mr. Hardman: New scales of salary for these teachers have been approved by my right hon. Friend to come into force from 1st April.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement concerning his approval of new salary scales for full-time teachers in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Hardman: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) last week he has now given formal approval to the new salary scales for these teachers which were recommended by the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he has yet approved a new salary scale for part-time teachers in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. The remuneration of part-time teachers is left to the discretion of local education authorities.

Roman Catholic Schools (Cost)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Education whether he will give an estimate of the total capital cost to the Roman


Catholic community, to the Exchequer and to the local education authorities respectively, of carrying out the proposals contained in local education authorities' development plans for the improvement and replacement of existing Roman Catholic schools and for the building of new Roman Catholic schools to meet the anticipated increase in the number of schoolchildren.

Mr. Hardman: As the answer contains a number of figures, and requires a somewhat lengthy and technical explanation, my right hon. Friend is circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can summarise the result by saying that the net initial capital cost to the Roman Catholics of bringing up to standard existing facilities for nearly 400,000 children is, on present standards and prices, estimated to be about £28,500,000. The contribution of the Exchequer and of the local education authorities to this work would amount to some £45 million.
The cost to the Roman Catholics of providing new school places for an additional 170,000 children is estimated to amount to just over £23 million. The local education authorities would be responsible for the provision of the dining and certain other facilities and this is estimated to cost just over £2 million, of which the Exchequer would carry its share by way of grant, most of it at the rate of 100 per cent.

Mr. Proctor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave difficulties of the Church communities in meeting the demand which will be made upon them in this connection? While all connected with this problem are thankful to the Minister of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary, for what has been done in an administrative way, will everything possible be done to promote an agreed settlement which will ease the burden on the Church communities.

Mr. Hardman: We are always prepared to come to any agreement which is possible under the terms of existing legislation. In reply to the earlier part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would point out that I do not think that this burden represents an impossible sum, bearing in mind the long period over which this expenditure will be spread and the fact that Exchequer loans will be

available to help the Roman Catholics to meet the £28 million which I have mentioned.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. and right hon. Friends are in sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) as to the difficulties experienced by the denominations? Would he agree, first, that any adjustment made within the framework of the existing settlement should be made in the interests of all denominations alike and not in favour of one particular denomination? I think we should all agree on that. Secondly, would he be ready at any time to hear representations from hon. Members on this side of the House in support of the point of view put by the hon. Member for Eccles?

Mr. Hardman: Clearly, my answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was in complete agreement with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever can be done must be done for all denominations. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend and myself are anxious at all times to get help in educational matters which, after all, call very much for a co-operative effort especially in this House. If the right hon. Gentleman will approach my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, no doubt any discussions which he suggests will be welcomed.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Will my hon. Friend ensure that no alteration is made in the 1944 settlement without agreement by all parties interested including the teachers?

Mr. Hardman: That is a point which I have already made.

Mr. Hollis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, though this burden may or may not be an impossible one, it has turned out to be a good deal heavier than was envisaged when the 1944 settlement was made? Though I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give an answer in response to a supplementary question on this matter, would he agree that there is a great distinction between keeping the essence of the settlement of 1944 and making detailed changes to meet changed circumstances which perhaps nobody foresaw at the time?

Mr. Hardman: We have, in fact, made certain detailed changes, but it may be that they do not go as far as the bodies to which we refer would want us to go.

Mr. Shurmer: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into consideration the difficulties which are now arising with local authorities because of the great influx of Irish people into large towns and cities,

ENGLAND AND WALES


ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS


Estimated Initial Capital Cost of Implementing Development Plan Proposals


Expenditure £000s


Share of initial capital cost to be met by:
"Maintaining facilities"
New (additional) school places


Alterations to existing schools
Transferred and rebuilt schools
Substituted schools and schools for displaced pupils
Special agreement schools
Total


Managers and Governors
4,150
7,400
11,075
5,750
28,375
23,150


*Local Education Authorities
—
1,800
2,100
18,750
22,650
2,350


Exchequer Grant to Managers and Governors
4,150
7,400
11,075
—
22,625
—


TOTAL
8,300
16,600
24,250
24,500
73,650
25,500


* Subject to grant aid from Ministry of Education.


The estimate assumes that all Roman Catholic schools will become aided or special agreement schools and that in general the development plan of the local education authority, even where it has not yet received my right hon. Friend's formal approval, represents the best practicable forecast of future educational needs. It should be remembered, however, that individual projects included in development plans require detailed consideration and approval when the time comes to carry them out, and the extent to which particular projects are eligible for grant under Section 102–104 of the Education Act. 1944. will depend on the circumstances at that stage.


The scope of the estimate is limited to the initial capital cost of building work. It excludes, for example, the cost of furniture and equipment, which is provided by the local education authority; any interest charges to be met by the managers or governors for loans raised to finance their share of the initial capital cost; and any sums accruing to the managers or governors from the sale of discontinued schools or from war damage payments.


The cost of the building work has been estimated on the basis of the current ceiling figures for net cost (£140 per place for most primary schools and £240 per place for most secondary schools). Allowance has also been made for external works, such as the construction of roads and paths on the site which are excluded in the calculation of net cost per place.


The local education authorities' contribution covers the provision of dining facilities, medical inspection rooms, playing fields, etc. The cost of this work, much of which is physically inseparable from the main building work, has been apportioned on the basis of percentage figures obtained from an examination of recent school building projects. In the case of special agreement schools the local education authority also contributes 50–75 per cent. of the capital cost of the rest of the building work.


It is impossible to forecast the length of time which it will take to implement completely proposal's in development plans; but the total expenditure given in the table is bound to be spread over a considerable number of years. Generally speaking, managers and governors of aided schools can apply for Exchequer loans in respect of their share of the expenditure included under the general heading of "Maintaining Facilities", such loans being available in normal cases for a maximum period of 30 years.


Once these capital costs had been met the only expense falling on the managers or governors would as in the case of existing aided or special agreement schools, be the cost of external repairs and of any further alterations which might be found to be necessary, and towards these they could expect a grant of 50 per cent. from my Department. All the other expense of maintenance, including the salaries of the teachers, would fall on public funds.

because Birmingham alone has 20,000 Irish people and the schools are so overcrowded that it is sometimes impossible to find accommodation?

Mr. Hardman: I have always understood that the main export from Ireland into Great Britain has been not creamery products, but genius.

Following are the figures:

COMMONWEALTH (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Gilbert Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether His Majesty's Government will now set up machinery to ensure consultation with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and obtaining their approval before Colonial Territories which shall have achieved full self-government are admitted as equal partners in the Commonwealth.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): It is already the practice of the United Kingdom Government to consult the Governments of the other members of the Commonwealth on such a matter.

Mr. Longden: While welcoming the prospect of new members of the Commonwealth, of whatever colour, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that, according to the Prime Minister of South Africa, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has "already cordially conceded," apparently unilaterally, the demand of West Africa to be accepted into the Commonwealth when she has achieved full self-government?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: That is a question that ought to be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies or to Dr. Malan, but not to me.

Sir Richard Acland: Is it not clear that the principle of our helping, guiding and directing colonial peoples towards self-government within the Commonwealth, and therefore necessarily as members of the Commonwealth, has been so long established that, although other Dominions may perhaps wish to make suggestions on points of detail, there is no power now to stand out against that principle as a principle?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I was asked whether we have, in fact, consulted other members of the Commonwealth when new members have been admitted, and the answer is that we have. It is the ordinary practice so to do.

Sir R. Acland: Yes, but it can only be on detail. There cannot be any right to bject in principle to a policy so long laid down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Statutory Instruments

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many Statutory Instruments have been made by him, or on his behalf, during the last six months which have the effect of either increasing or permitting an increase in the price of goods or services.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Since 1st October, 1950, the Board of Trade have made altogether 80 Statutory Instruments increasing the maximum prices which manufacturers are permitted to charge for goods or services.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the very clear line of policy indicated by that very large number of permitted increases, is not the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman even to discuss further increases with the interests concerned, on the grounds of the risk of Parliamentary inconvenience in defending his decision, a completely unprecedented breach of Ministerial responsibility?

Mr. Wilson: In view of the clear opposition which has been shown by hon. Members opposite to every price control order, or almost every price control order, that has been debated in the last two or three weeks, I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman is now working up so much synthetic indignation over the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say in how many cases concerning these 80 orders the Opposition have moved Prayers for annulment, but have not had the courage to vote on them?

Mr. Wilson: No, not without notice, but the interesting thing is that, over the first few months of that period, there were virtually no Prayers. There were only two in 1950, whereas there have been 10 or 12 in the last fortnight.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way in which comment can be made on one of these orders at all, whether of approval or disapproval, is by praying for its annulment? Can he point to a single instance, in the last few weeks, when these Prayers have been considered, which would justify his wholly irregular and quite possibly unconstitutional action?

Mr. Wilson: What I cannot point to— and I have studied the debates—is a single point of substance raised on the orders, with the exception of the point raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), which turned out to be wrong.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman, by his extraordinary statement, deny the right of the Opposition to raise these subjects in debate and put forward their point of view, at whatever the hour?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir; not in the slightest. In a public statement which I made last Friday, as well as in the statement which I made in the House in the early hours of Friday morning, I said very clearly that we fully recognised the right of Prayer against any of these Statutory Orders, whether they are objectionable by reason of drafting, substance or in any other way.

Mr. R. A. Butler: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with his unconstitutional action in linking up his Departmental duty, or lack of duty, with the question of the rights of free speech in the House, to which the Opposition attach such great importance?

Mr. Wilson: There has never been any question of linking up my Departmental duties with the right of free speech, or the lack of free speech, in the House.

Mr. Snow: Is not the whole of this country indulging in one great belly laugh at the results of the collective "old soldiering" of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no points of substance were raised at all on the Prayers last week, is he aware that two Prayers took a long time to discuss, and that, concerning one of them, the Government have already given way and announced their intention to introduce an amending Order?

Mr. Wilson: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to price control orders, but my reference, of course, was to price control orders, which form the basis of the Question before the House.

Furniture Prices Order

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether related schedule U.F.6 was laid before

Parliament with the Furniture (Maximum Prices) Amendment No. 3 Order, 1951; and when copies of this related schedule were made available in the Vote Office.

Mr. H. Wilson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I understand that His Majesty's Stationery Office delivered copies of the Order and the related schedule to the Vote Office on the morning of publication, 16th February, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman then explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the debate on 8th March, was only able to produce U.F.5, the schedule which was being abolished, and was completely unable to produce schedule U.F.6? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole Order is quite meaningless unless we have schedule U.F.6?

Mr. Wilson: I have already made clear that schedule U.F.6 was available in the Vote Office at the same time as the Order.

Sir H. Williams: As I moved the Prayer in connection with this Order, and as I asked in the afternoon at the Vote Office and the Library for copies of the schedule and could not get them. May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was only able to get the Library copy from the Board of Trade by telephoning his private secretary? Why was no copy available on the day of the debate?

Mr. Wilson: I am not, of course, responsible for the administration of the Vote Office, or for whether enough copies were made available, but, as regards the Library, I believe there was some misunderstanding, and I understand that hon. Members who expressed interest were assured afterwards that copies were available.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in future, in the event of any debates being permitted on Prayers, the schedules will be available in sufficient quantities to ensure that, at least, the Leader of the House has one?

Mr. Wilson: It is certainly my desire that they should be available in sufficient quantities for all hon. Members, but it is


not my responsibility to instruct the Vote Office on how many copies they should take. The Vote Office can have as many copies as they ask for, and I am sure that those responsible for this question will notice the very fair point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is desirable that, when these questions are raised in the House, all the essential documents should be available, because I quite agree that, without the schedule, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand the main Order.

Tinplate Exports

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what allocations of tinplate have been made to Empire countries for the specific purpose of packing food for import into the United Kingdom.

Mr. H. Wilson: None, Sir. Tinplate is exported to Commonwealth countries without restrictions as to its use.

Film Quotas

Mr. George Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about exhibitors' film quotas for the year beginning 1st October, 1951.

Mr. H. Wilson: After consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, I do not propose to make any order this year to amend the Cinematograph Films (Quota) Order. This means that the prescribed quotas will remain at 30 per cent. for first feature films and 25 for supporting programmes for the 12 months period beginning October 1st, 1951.

Mr. Jeger: Does not my right hon. Friend think that perhaps there could be an increase in this quota, in view of the great unemployment among actors, actresses and technicians in the film industry, and can he say whether he consulted with all sides of the industry before arriving at his decision?

Mr. Wilson: I should very much like to have made an increase in this quota, and I am sure that the whole House would, but the size of the quota must depend on the number of films which are likely to be made, and I cannot accept the suggestion implicit in the remarks of

my hon. Friend that an increased quota would increase production and employment. In answer to the latter part of his question, nearly all sections of the industry are represented on the Cinematograph Films Council.

American Sulphur

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement has yet been reached about the allocation of sulphur from the United States of America; and whether he will make a statement about the distribution of sulphur to essential industries.

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to increase the supplies of sulphuric acid to the rayon industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: Agreement has not yet been reached with the Government of the United States of America on the allocation of sulphur, and I still await decision on the representations which have been made. Pending this, every effort will be directed to maintain supplies to essential industries, including supplies of sulphuric acid for the rayon industry, at as high a level as practicable.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the very severe threat to our industry, will my right hon. Friend say whether he intends to make a personal visit to the United States to raise this matter at the highest level; and, has he any comment to make on recent newspaper allegations that this shortage arises because we were not making dollars available?

Mr. Wilson: I think it is too early to say whether any visits will be paid to the United States on this question. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I did see the suggestion in the Press last Saturday that the shortage was due to a failure to allocate dollars. In fact, dollars have been allocated throughout for the whole amount of the supplies available to us, and there is no foundation whatever for the "Daily Telegraph" statement.

Mr. Brown: Has my right hon. Friend explored every avenue in order to secure new markets or new sources of supply, and have there been any attempts to secure sulphuric acid from Spain and Cyprus? Is he further aware that the rayon industry


in Lancashire is depreciating very severely, and that we shall be faced with unemployment if something is not done?

Mr. Wilson: On the first point, we have been throwing the net very wide, not only for supplies of sulphur, but, more particularly, for pyrites, and we get large quantities from Spain. We are also going into the question of the development of supplies from Cyprus, and the development at home of acid supplies from anhydrites. On the second part, I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said. In fact, the rayon industry has not been cut by anything like as much as it will be cut if the allocation scheme which I have already mentioned to the House has to be introduced.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not only are these materials important in the rayon industry, but that sulphuric acid is very important from the point of view of the metal industry?

Mr. Wilson: A shortage of sulphur affects practically every industry in the country.

Mr. David Eccles: As the position will be very uncertain while these negotiations are going on, will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Government's policy in regard to the export of superphosphates? Is such export allowed or not?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer on that specific point, but, of course, sulphur exports generally are very small.

Industrial Development, Scotland

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new companies and with what aggregate capital were registered in Scotland in 1949 and in 1950; how many of them originated in Glasgow and Edinburgh; how many in other parts of Scotland; and how many in the seven crofter counties.

Mr. H. Wilson: In 1949, 683 new companies were registered in Scotland with an aggregate nominal share capital of £8.2 million, and 10 were registered without a share capital. The corresponding figures for 1950 were 623 companies with an aggregate share capital of £6.6 million, and four without a share capital. As

regards the second part of the Question complete information is not available, but I am obtaining some particulars, which I will send to the noble Lord.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he gets these figures they are likely to show that by far the greater bulk of development is in the industrial belt in Scotland? Is it not desirable, in present circumstances, to get more development in the remoter regions, and will he remember that it is not a question of compulsion, but that, by encouragement, he can do a great deal to further development in the North?

Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have very much at heart the desirability of establishing industries in the particular parts of Scotland which the noble Lord has in mind, but, as he has shown in his Question, he realises the difficulty.

Elections (Paper Supplies)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what stock of paper is held available for candidates' literature in the event of a general election; and if he will give an assurance that such a stock is available at the present time;
(2) if he will take steps to ensure that there is sufficient paper available for candidates' literature in the forthcoming municipal elections.

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of paper are available to all candidates in the municipal elections next May.

Mr. H. Wilson: As explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 20th March, arrangements have been made with the paper and printing trades for preferential treatment to be given, under the voluntary priority scheme for paper and boards, to the requirements of all political parties for both national and local elections. The trade organisations concerned have recently been reminded of the importance of this matter, and assurances of their co-operation have since been received. In these circumstances, I consider it unnecessary to earmark special stocks of paper for this purpose, but it is most important that the


trade should see that these needs are met. Hon. Members may rest assured that we shall continue to watch the position very closely.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will keep the matter under continuous review, in view of the fact that the paper might be required at any time now? Can he further say whether representations have been made to the trade organisations in regard to paper for the municipal elections, and whether he received any information from Wembley about the difficulties they experienced in getting paper for the municipal election?

Mr. Wilson: I am not aware of any representations from Wembley, but I will inquire whether there were any. As regards both municipal and national elections, that is a matter which is being kept very closely under review so far as paper supplies are concerned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether sufficient paper will be made available to wrap up all the red herrings which the Opposition are preparing for the next election?

Nylon Production

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he estimates that difficulties in the supply of sulphur will lead to a decline in output of nylon yarn in the United Kingdom; and whether he anticipates any diminution of supply of nylon stockings for the home market during the year 1951.

Mr. H. Wilson: Nylon production depends directly on the supply of nylon polymer. Sulphur and sulphuric acid are used for making some of the chemicals which go into the manufacture of nylon polymer, but the quantities are not large, and I understand that it is unlikely that production will have to be reduced owing to shortage of sulphur. As regards nylon stockings, I said in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), on 1st March that I could see no prospect of increasing supplies further for some time to come, but I hope that it will not be

necessary to reduce supplies to the home market.

Mr. Nabarro: As the shortage of sulphur may lead to a serious diminution in the output of rayon stockings, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making good the deficiency by diverting additional supplies of nylon stockings to the home market?

Mr. Wilson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, all hon. Members opposite, had accepted the vital necessity in the present economic situation, of increasing our exports. In the circumstances, therefore, however desirable it might be to have more supplies for the home market, I am sure he would not press for any diminution of an important export programme.

Tariff Conference, Torquay

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Torquay Conference will end; and when the results of the conference will be published.

Mr. H. Wilson: As was stated in a Press notice issued by the Secretariat of the conference at Torquay on 15th March, arrangements have been made for the completion of the bilateral and of the multilateral stages of the negotiations so as to bring the conference to a close on 21st April. The results of the conference are to remain secret until 9th May, and on 12th May the full text of the Torquay concessions will be made public by the Secretariat at Geneva. I shall, of course, arrange for the results of the conference to be made available to the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking not to sell out the Empire any further, as appears to have been done over sugar?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate in that allegation. There have been statements in this House about it, and I cannot accept the suggestion he makes. I gave an assurance about the attitude of this country towards the Imperial Preference question before the conference began, and I think that when the conference ends the House will not be dissatisfied with the way in which I have kept that assurance.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (REPORT)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on the policy of the Government with regard to the recommendations made in the Beveridge Report on the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the replies which were given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Lord President of the Council, but I am giving the matter urgent attention.

Sir T. Moore: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back to the House in his new capacity, even though he will not be allowed to hold it very long— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]— because of the approaching end of this Parliament—will he say whether he would be prepared to receive representations from many of us who do not approve of several or, indeed, many of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Bevin: I intend to give the House a very full opportunity to debate this subject, but I have not yet come to a final conclusion, because I do not know whether to do it by the method of a White Paper. I want to put forward the Government's views and enable the House to have a free debate, so that the Government can then come to a final conclusion on the attitude to be adopted with regard to the B.B.C. In that way, we can hear everybody's opinion.

Mr. Lambert: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is the Government's policy not to sacrifice sound broadcasting to the development of television?

Mr. Bevin: I am not an expert on either, but one thing I have learned among a lot of others in my lifetime is that the fellow who is not an expert usually makes the best settlement.

Mr. Lambert: As the right hon. Gentleman started his career in Devonshire, will he see that the people of Devon get adequate sound broadcasts?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Grassland Fertiliser Scheme (Forms)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that some agricultural executive committees have not yet received the necessary forms to enable farmers to claim subsidies under the Grassland Fertiliser Scheme; and whether, since this scheme deals with fertilisers applied during the period 1st January to 30th June, he will arrange for the early distribution of such forms so that the subsidy scheme may be administered efficiently.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Yes, Sir, the forms of application to which the hon. Member refers are being printed and will be available early next month.

February Price Review

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement on the results of the February price review.

Mr. E. Martin Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the report of the February price review can be expected.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what dates since 1948 the guaranteed prices for farm produce were announced; and when he proposes to announce them this year.

Mr. G. Brown: In 1949 and 1950 guaranteed prices were announced on 17th and 23rd March respectively. The current review is not yet concluded, but my right hon. Friend hopes to announce the Government's decisions about future prices within a few days.

Mr. Hurd: When these prices are announced will they be accompanied by a statement of the essential facts on which the new prices are based?

Mr. Brown: Yes. My right hon. Friend has said that in due course a White Paper will be issued giving some, at any rate, of the essential data.

Mr. A. Lewis: Has my hon. Friend received information whether, in the event of an increase in the prices, the


Opposition will start a "phoney" campaign for a reduction of prices, as they have done in other matters?

Chrysanthemum Plants (Export Licence)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture why Mr. T. W. Bevan, of Apple Garth Nursery, Victoria Road, Ferndown, was refused a licence to export chrysanthemum plants to the United States; and on what grounds his Department declined to carry out the necessary inspection.

Mr. G. Brown: No export licence is required, but the United States Government requires a health certificate with all plant material entering that country. Through a misunderstanding, Mr. Bevan failed to arrange for his plants to be inspected so that such a certificate could be issued, but there has been no refusal to inspect the plants. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which my Department has sent to Mr. Bevan explaining the position.

Mr. Crouch: In view of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding, and that, according to the information I have, the misunderstanding is the Minister's, will Mr. Bevan be given some compensation for the loss of his exports?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's information must be misleading. The misunderstanding was Mr. Bevan's.

Farm Workers (Food)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the strain now imposed on the health and strength of farm workers resulting from lack of meat and other sustaining food; and if, in the interests of full production in agriculture, he will consult with the Minister of Food to ensure that farm workers obtain as good food as miners and other heavy workers who have the use of canteens.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the circumstances of the agricultural industry, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on 19th March.

Mr. Hurd: Would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of the Easter Recess to see what these farm workers have to take out with them for their mid-day meal—a bit of bread, a scrap of margarine, jam or fish paste? It is really not enough.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that I myself or my right hon. Friend is in need of any instruction from the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

Sir H. Williams: Will the new Order relating to cheese, which, I think, was notified yesterday, have any adverse effect on agricultural labourers, or are they exempt from the cuts to be imposed on the rest of us?

Mr. Brown: The farm workers' supplementary allowance of cheese is distinct and quite apart from the general ration.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Although the hon. Gentleman may not want advice, the point is that no action has been taken. Will he look into the matter, which is becoming very serious?

Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware that the general position of agricultural workers today at £5 a week is far better than it was in the days of Tory Governments at 30s. a week?

Rainfall (Effect)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the rainfall in recent months, and its effect on agriculture, what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to obviate shortfalls in the estimated crops for 1951 so as to ensure no further hardship on the citizens of this country, or reductions of feedingstuffs to the farmer.

Mr. G. Brown: The rainfall of recent months has caused, and is causing, great difficulties to farmers in their spring sowings and cultivations, but it is much too early to forecast the final results of the harvest. There is likely to be a marked deficiency in the wheat acreage, which may be offset by increased sowings of barley, but I could not at this stage forecast yields per acre, nor the acreages of crops other than cereals. I cannot, therefore, at present accept the implications of this Question.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it not true that there are certain types of seed that can be sown much later than others,


and will the hon. Gentleman see that they are distributed, through the county agricultural executive committees, and so on, to farmers, so that they may have the opportunity of overcoming the effects of the wet weather by using those special types of seed?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that there is any doubt about that. The executive committees, the National Agricultural Advisory Committee, the National Farmers' Union and everybody else has been co-operating not only in these past weeks but for months, indeed years, in this matter.

Animal Feedingstuffs (Ration)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement about rations of animal feeding-stuffs for this summer.

Mr. G. Brown: Yes, Sir. I apologise for the length of this answer. In spite of substantial dollar purchases the total supply of animal feedingstuffs available for the ration pool in the year beginning 1st May next is likely to be rather less than in the preceding 12 months. It will, therefore, be necessary to reduce the rations for dairy cows by 14 lb. per cow per month for each of the three months May, June and July, and to reduce by one third the cereal part of the "steaming-up" allowance issued in July for cows due to calve in the autumn. The amount of discretionary reserves to be allocated by county agricultural executive committees this summer will also be less than in recent years. Apart from these changes, summer ration scales will be the same as for last year.
I should add a warning that the level of self-sufficiency in cereals for dairy cows throughout the next winter period is likely to be the same as at present, namely, the first 1⅛ gallons of milk per day, whilst, as already announced, for protein next winter we shall be requiring self-sufficiency for the first gallon of milk per day. Despite the difficulties of the present sowing season, all farmers with livestock would be well advised to plan for the maximum production of fodder crops and silage.

Mr. Johnson: How does this estimate of cereals and protein feedingstuffs in the coming year compare with the figure for last year? Will it hinder the expansion

programme? What steps has my hon. Friend taken to consult the farming interests in this important matter?

Mr. Brown: The comparison with last year is that we are down a little, but not very much. We have got about 5.25 million tons as against 5.4 million tons, but we are very nearly 1,750,000 tons up on 1947–48. As to the effect on the expansion programme, it may retard slightly some milk production, but with new techniques of grass growing we may well overcome that. As to consultation, this announcement was made after consulting the Ministry's rationing advisory committee, which includes representatives of the farmers.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Gentleman has said how the figure he has given us compares with that for 1948. Will he say how far down it is on that for 1938?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice, but it does not seem very relevant anyhow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, with great respect. We cannot have in 1950–51 any more than is available for 1950–51, whatever may have been available in other years. This season, as everybody knows, there is, all over the world, a shortage of cereals due to the weather and other causes. We have got all we can get, including a large dollar purchase.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Was there not any wet weather before the advent of Socialism?

Ministry Land Holdings

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total acreage of land held by his department in March. 1945; and what is the total today.

Mr. G. Brown: In March, 1945, my Department held under requisition about 380,000 acres of land, and owned 14,000 acres. It now holds under requisition about 73,000 acres, and owns 182.000 acres.

Building Experiments

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture what experiments his Department has carried out in building agricultural houses and buildings in pisé de terre and stabilised earth.

Mr. G. Brown: My Department has not carried out any. Experiments in building in pisé de terre were, however, designed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and built on the Ministry's small-holdings estate at Ames-bury in Wiltshire in 1919 and a report on the experiment was published in 1921 by H.M. Stationery Office.

Mr. Vane: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether these buildings have proved satisfactory after 30 years of life? That is more important than a report two years after erection?

Mr. Brown: They are still there, and no special maintenance problems have been experienced.

DOUBLE TAXATION (INDIA)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that 100 per cent. relief against double taxation is given to all residents in the United Kingdom who are in receipt of pensions from the Government of India in respect of former service with the Government of undivided India or any of the provincial Governments.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The allowance in full of Indian tax against United Kingdom tax in all cases would require an alteration of the law. As I explained in answer to a Question from the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on Tuesday, 13th March, the existing arrangements will be adequate to relieve most pensioners from any burden of double taxation.

Mr. Low: Will the Government make sure that these pensioners are treated fairly in all cases? Ought he not to see that there is an alteration in the law? Does he appreciate that while there is some doubt about this matter, and complication, as he will no doubt agree, it means extra cost to those who have not the money to pay this extra amount of taxation?

Mr. Jay: I agree that the position is not fully satisfactory. Difficulty arises owing to the unwillingness of the Indian Government to make a double taxation

agreement. We did a good deal by unilateral relief last year, but we think that the complete solution is to make such an agreement with the Indian Government.

Sir J. Mellor: Did not the Minister guarantee that these persons would receive their pensions in full?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I think that all we undertook was to reach an agreement on double taxation with the Indian Government.

HOLIDAY RESORTS (ILLUMINATION)

Mr. William Teeling: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any statement to make concerning illuminations for holiday resorts over the Easter holidays.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Although the supplies of coal have greatly improved, it is still necessary to make every practicable economy in its use, in order that we may start the building of stocks during the summer months from as high a level as possible. For that reason, I propose that the order which prohibits the lighting of shops and advertisements shall continue in force until 15th April, when Summer time comes in.
Illuminations provided by the local authorities of holiday resorts, however, consume much less coal. After consultation with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), and with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn), and others, I have come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable and right for the local authorities of holiday resorts to switch on their illuminations for three hours each evening on Saturday, Sunday and Monday of this Easter holiday. I hope that the hon. Members concerned, and the House in general, will consider that this is an acceptable plan.

Mr. Teeling: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this partial and slight concession, which, at least, will make people in holiday resorts realise what it was like in the good old days, may I ask


if he will bear in mind that it is now 12 o'clock? How are the town clerks of the corporations concerned to get to know about this concession? They will have to get everything ready today. As, tomorrow, there are no newspapers, will he take steps, through the B.B.C. or in some other way, to make sure that holiday visitors know about it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Members who are on the Holiday Resorts Committee, who put this point to him, are very grateful for the sympathetic manner in which he has received it?

Mr. McAdden: Would the Minister give consideration to this point? In a scheme of corporation illuminations very often there are incorporated illuminations which are provided and paid for by private persons. These are included in the corporation's scheme, although the electricity charges are paid by the persons concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman also allow these schemes of lighting to be restored for a temporary period in order that the whole scheme of illuminations may not be disjointed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will consider that. It may involve special licences which it would be very difficult to prepare in time; I am not sure.

Sir R. Acland: If the Easter holiday took place about three weeks later, would not the shop windows be lit up for several minutes longer, free of charge, by Divine Providence?

SCOTTISH NATIONAL CONGRESS (RESOLUTION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Major LLOYD: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, passed at a meeting of the Scottish National Congress at its meeting in Glasgow on Saturday, 17th March, containing a pledge by that conference to protect those Scots who refuse to be conscripted by an English Government; and what action His Majesty's Government now propose to take.

Major Lloyd: On a point of order. I desire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask your

advice. I think that perhaps you will agree, when I have concluded, that I also need your protection against what I consider to be a gross discourtesy to me today.
On Saturday last, a very important meeting took place at which a most appalling resolution was passed which is referred to in Question No. 97 the last oral Question on the Order Paper today. I tried to get advice as to whether I could raise the matter as a Private Notice Question when I reached London, but I was told that it was too late for me to do so. Therefore, I put a Question down to the Prime Minister, and if you will look at Question No. 97, Sir, you will see that it raises a very important issue about which Scottish people are very deeply concerned.
On the advice of the Table, I put the Question down to the Prime Minister and it was accepted by the Table. I realised, too late, that the Prime Minister would not be able to answer it, but it is quite customary for his deputy or someone on his behalf, to answer a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. The matter has been referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is quite obvious that this Question will not be answered orally, today, and I think that, in view of the very vital importance of the issue and the contempt of the people of Scotland for this disgusting resolution, we ought to have a reply from someone on behalf of the Prime Minister today.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that the Chair cannot intervene in this matter. Questions are transferred as between the Departments. This Question has been approved by the Table, but, of course, it has not been reached. I am sure, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has ventilated the matter quite well.

Major Lloyd: In view of the fact that we have a Minister representing Scotland here today, that this is a very vital matter to the people of Scotland; that I addressed the Question in the first place to the Prime Minister and that it was accepted by the Prime Minister, would you, Sir, with the permission of the House allow the Question to be answered now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I can depart from the usual rule.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have a request from the Leader of the Opposition to be allowed to ask a question on business.

Mr. Churchill: I would like to ask this question on business. Last night the Leader of the House used this phrase:
I think that we should be helped in dealing with these and other matters if the present clogging … of the usual channels could be removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 21st March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2565.]
Can he tell us precisely what he meant by that?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I only received notice a short while ago that a question about business—there was no conversation as to what it was—would be put to me. I received the message about six minutes to twelve o'clock.

Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows what he said and why he said it?

Mr. Ede: I endeavour to treat the right hon. Gentleman with the utmost courtesy in the House but I sometimes find it very trying, because it is very difficult to make any statement to him without having a running commentary from him while I am making it.
Since I have held the position of Leader of the House, it has been reported to me from time to time, by way of the usual channels, that the ordinary conversations that normally take place between the two major parties in the House had, in fact, not been taking place. I am exceedingly anxious that that arrangement which deals with a lot of matters which we never discuss at Question Time, and which allows the business of the House to proceed with some comfort for all concerned, and with knowledge of what is likely to happen without going too far in disclosing what the motives and desires of parties may be, should be resumed.
I am exceedingly anxious that amicable arrangements should exist, it being understood that the political fight will be continued with the utmost vigour and determination by both sides. But it would be helpful, I think if conversations took place from time to time between my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip, as is usual.

Mr. Churchill: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no truth in what he has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There has been no change of practice by the Opposition Whips at all in the matter of discussion. They are free to continue exactly as they have done. If such an impression has been conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman, who has made himself the mouthpiece of it, it is really entirely ill-founded. My hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip assures me that there is not the slightest foundation for that. The usual channels are perfectly free to discuss, exactly as they always have done, matters which are within their purview. The only exception which I make is that a grave matter like the alteration——

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) entitled to make a speech of this kind, because I am under the impression that no other right hon. or hon. Member of the House would be allowed to make a speech on this occasion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Debate is not permissible. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was asking a question and a very full reply has been given. I do not know, but it may be that the right hon. Gentleman desires to ask another Question. I must say, with the utmost courtesy, that we cannot have a debate on this matter. This is a matter of question and answer on matters of business only.

Mr. Richard Adams: Since the usual channels are not recognised as part of the business of the House, is not the right hon. Gentleman completely out of order in raising this matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the right hon. Gentleman was raising a question on business.

Mr. Churchill: I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in view of the assurance which I have given him that his information was incorrect and that there is no change at all on our side in the discussions of the ordinary matters of business which take place through the usual channels, if he will withdraw the statement which he has made?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have made inquiries myself, because, as the right


hon. Gentleman intimated one day this week, there are some things which should be discussed by the usual channels and reported to us.

Mr. Churchill: What?

Mr. Ede: There are some things which ought not to be discussed between the usual channels, and he said he would be pleased to receive me if I were prepared to discuss these matters further. I am very happy to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that on his side there is no objection to these ordinary conversations——

Mr. Churchill: Ordinary.

Mr. Ede: —these ordinary conversations being resumed. There was another matter which he raised the other day, when he intimated that he would not be in favour of conversations being conducted through the usual channels, but that he and I, and possibly some friends and the Liberal Party, should meet face to face. I am very happy to hear that there may have been some misunderstanding about these matters, and that there is every willingness on the part of the Opposition for discussions about business and that the arrangements shall be resumed, as was the case formerly.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that large issues of policy should be settled in that way. That would be quite unusual. Am I not right in thinking that he has not suggested that?

Mr. Ede: Oh, no.

Mr. Churchill: As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn), in his conduct of our side of the affair, has been reflected upon, I hope that my hon. Friend may be permitted to tell the House what his view is.

Mr. Ede: I made no reflection on the hon. Gentleman. It would appear from the statement now made that there may have been some misunderstanding, and I want the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn) both to understand that my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip will always be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beckenham—the Opposition Chief Whip—to discuss those matters that are

normally discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I do not think there is anything I wish to say except I should like to ask, on what occasion have I refused to see my colleague—as I hope I may call him—the Government Chief Whip in connection with anything to do with Government business? There may have been a misunderstanding, in which case I am extremely sorry, but I should like to know.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose—

Sir Herbert Williams: Seconds out of the ring.

Mr. Whiteley: During the past fortnight particularly, matters have arisen which, of course, cannot be discussed in the House of Commons. They are matters of a domestic nature, which have made it nearly impossible for us to run our business in the ordinary way. As a matter of fact, there has been no intimation to me from time to time about the question of Prayers. I got it into my head, rightly or wrongly, that the Opposition were endeavouring to run the House of Commons. We cannot afford to allow late Sittings to the extent of 1.30 and 2 o'clock in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am responsible for the Orders of the Day, and I have to see at least that the people behind me are not going to be inconvenienced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —just for the pleasure and convenience of hon. Members opposite. If hon. Members opposite want an all-night Sitting we can have one, but it is not going to be four nights a week till 1.30 a.m. or 2 a.m. If we are going to have a late Sitting, let us have it to breakfast time in the morning. Rightly or wrongly, seeing what has happened, I made up my mind definitely that that was not going to happen in the future, and so long as I am here I am going to see that that kind of thing does not happen.

Mr. Churchill: Returning to the question of business, am I right in understanding that the Leader of the House was going to make some proposals of a serious character to us on this side of the House, as soon as he had had consultations with the President of the Board of Trade and others? Has that matter been clogged


up, too? At any rate, we should like to know. So far, we have received no intimation of any kind and as any idea that that discussion was being clogged —if the right hon. Gentleman had it in his mind—is quite untrue, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his accusation that the usual channels are being clogged. May I say—and for this I ask the indulgence of the House—that nothing would give me greater pain than to cause distress to one for whom I have such great respect and admiration, the Government Chief Whip.

Mr. Ede: I cannot withdraw the statement I made, but I am very glad to know that there appears to have been some misunderstanding. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter, because I now understand that the usual discussions can be resumed for the convenience of all of us.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: Mr. Iain MacLeod rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We have had a long discussion and some of it has been irregular and out of order. Having regard to what has been said by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, I hope the House will now permit us to proceed with the business.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: On a point of order. Is it not perfectly in order for a Private Member, wherever he may sit in this House, to put a Motion on the Order Paper if he chooses, and not only not to have to inform the Government but even not to have to inform his own Front Bench?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I asked on what occasion I had refused to discuss anything. I was referring of course, to the conduct of Government business. Each week's programme is discussed between us. If I were not to co-operate in this then it might indeed be difficult. I cannot regard Prayers as coming within that scope, as that is a question for Private Members. My right hon. Friend might easily have asked me——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Are we all to be allowed to take part in this debate, which, I understood, was supposed to be a question on business?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave discretion in that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Prayers are regarded as back bench matters. In the past, the Government Chief Whip has said to me, "There seem to be a great many down tonight. Would it be convenient to take this or that off?" I have sometimes suggested to my hon. Friends that they might like to put them off, but if they have refused I cannot do anything about it. I do not regard those matters as necessarily coming within the usual channels.

Mr. Whiteley: There are many other matters which we cannot discuss across the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman and I can now discuss those matters. [An HON. MEMBER: "What matters?"] I am just telling the House that there are matters which ought not to be discussed in the House, but through the usual channels. I am prepared to discuss many things which have happened in recent days and of which the hon. Gentleman may or may not have been fully informed.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I had received no such invitation, but I shall be very glad to discuss these things whenever the right hon. Gentleman invites me to see him. I did not know there was any official business that we had not discussed.

RAILWAY FREIGHTS (INCREASE)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): As a result of the recent increases in railway wages and other substantial increases in their costs the British Transport Commission estimate that at current levels of charges there will be a deficit on their net revenue for 1951 of £25 million. This sum is, of course, in addition to their accumulated deficit on revenue account which amounted at the end of 1950 to £40 million.
Under the Transport Act the Commission are required to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for meeting charges properly chargeable to revenue taking one year with another. For this purpose they are required to submit draft charges schemes to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation. Pending the


coming into force of such schemes, Section 82 of the Act empowers me, in order to meet just such a situation as has arisen, to make regulations authorising an increase of charges if I think it expedient to do so, with a view to securing a sufficient revenue to the Commission. Before doing so, the Act requires me to consult, and consider the advice of, the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal.
In the light of their financial situation the Commission have asked me to exercise my powers under this section with a view to an immediate increase of 10 per cent. in railway freight charges, parcel rates, and dock and canal charges. The total yield of this increase in a full year is estimated at £20 million. As required by the Act I have consulted the permanent members of the Tribunal and expect shortly to receive their advice.
This procedure is intended as an immediate relief to the Commission and to prevent an undue enlargement of their deficit during the period required for their charges schemes. The date of operation of the passenger schemes which will be submitted shortly will be determined by the Tribunal. The freight scheme will follow.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the gravity of the statement which he has made, and which envisages a further increase of 10 per cent. on top of the 16⅔ per cent. which was granted to the Commission only a comparatively short time ago? He will, I am sure, appreciate that we shall need time to consider this matter and may possibly ask for an opportunity for a debate.
May I, meanwhile, ask him this question? He said that he had referred this matter to the Transport Tribunal, sitting as a consultative committee. Are we to assume—I am sure he must have information upon this point—that the Transport Tribunal intend to follow precedent and have a full public inquiry, in which the views of members of the public and of the traders involved can be fully canvassed, before the Tribunal tender their advice? Otherwise, the advice would seem to be very transient and ephemeral?

Mr. Barnes: Until the Tribunal express their views to me on this matter I am unable to state definitely what their attitude would be. In my submission to the

Tribunal I emphasised the urgency of dealing with this proposal and the request of the Transport Commission for a 10 per cent. increase. I urged the importance of the time factor in this matter, which is essential, as the Commission are now in a position to submit their charges schemes to the Tribunal, both for passenger and freight charges.
This matter will receive the exhaustive consideration which the Tribunal machinery, under the Transport Act, always visualised. It appeared to me that it was desirable that the losses of the Transport Commission, which recent increases in prices and wages make inevitable, should not proceed at an unduly rapid rate. I further indicated that they should take into consideration the fact that about his time last year, when the 15 per cent. increase was imposed on freight charges, they went through the whole of this procedure and that traders and other bodies concerned submitted their views in full. There has been no substantial change in the circumstances. The freight charges schemes will follow on, and they might take that into consideration. What advice the Transport Tribunal will tender to me on that I am not at the moment able to state, but I expect their advice fairly quickly.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In his statement the right hon. Gentleman referred in particular to railway freight charges, parcel rates and dock and canal charges. The very serious statement which he has made will require very careful consideration. Could he elucidate a little the position with regard to passenger fares? Is it intended to make a corresponding immediate increase of 10 per cent. in passenger fares?

Mr. Barnes: No. Sir. I have indicated in the statement that the Transport Commission are now in a position to proceed with the whole of their charges schemes as they were visualised. As I am informed, the first ones will deal with passenger fares, and they will be followed by the freight schemes. Therefore, I am not in any way dealing with passenger fares in this statement. As a matter of fact, in this statement I am not giving a decision on the request for a 10 per cent. increase in railway freights. I am awaiting the advice of the Transport Tribunal on that. All I am giving, with regard to the charges schemes, is the information


that they are about to be submitted to the Tribunal and that, from then on, that machinery will function.

Mr. Poole: May I ask the Minister two questions? Will he tell the House how much of the deficit of £25 million arises from the increased wages paid to railway men, or do those increases not come into the figure at all? Also, does he not now think that the time has come when he ought properly to tackle the question of the number of C licence vehicles, which has increased by 500,000 since nationalisation and is really responsible for this deficit?

Mr. Barnes: The problem of C licence vehicles has no bearing on these figures. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, approximately £19 million out of the £25 million deficit estimated for this year represents wage increases, most of it reflecting the recent wage increases to railway men, but not that entirely. Increases to London Transport and others come into the figure.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To what extent has a general subsidy to cover the Commission's deficit been considered? Has it been rejected, and if so, upon what grounds?

Mr. Barnes: From time to time, of course, all matters of that character have been considered by the Government. Hon. Members will be aware that in various debates that we have had on this subject I have referred not only to the question of subsidies but also to the view, expressed at different times by the Federation of British Industries, that a strategic subsidy should be considered. These matters have been very fully considered, and I am able to state once more this morning, as I have done previously, that we do not look to a subsidy to solve this problem and see no reason why, when the full charges schemes come into operation, transport as a whole should not meet its expenses.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister has made a statement. We cannot discuss all these related matters.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I would like to put an important question, Sir. In view

of the fact that the Minister's authority is required before this proposal can go through, will he, before granting that authority, lay down conditions about improved efficiency, dismissal of redundant staff and refusal to increase wages?

Mr. Barnes: Some of the matters to which the hon. Member has referred do not fall within my own power to determine. As to general pressure for increased efficiency and economy, that is taking place, and from time to time satisfactory progress is made. In any business organisation there will always be a difference of opinion as to the rate of progress. Nevertheless, a substantial improvement is indicated, though it is not of a character to meet our present situation, in which wage increases and the price increases on the huge purchases which the railways make affect the railway budget over a relatively short period. Most of the figures which I have given today have arisen within the first quarter of 1951, and progress in efficiency cannot effect substantial changes of that character.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. May we ask at what stage this debate will be suspended, Sir, so that we may get on with our other business?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Almost immediately, I hope.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, which will be my final one? I understood him to say that he had made strong representations to the Transport Tribunal that, as they went through all this a little time ago on the 16⅔ per cent. increase, it would not be necessary to go through it all again on this occasion. I ask him very carefully to consider the propriety of pressing the Transport Tribunal in that way not to hear evidence. Does he not agree that many of the questions which have been asked here, and many other cognate subjects, ought properly to be discussed before the Transport Tribunal? That is why the Tribunal are put in their consultative position. I ask him to withdraw the pressure which he has put upon them and to allow them, in accordance with the precedents which have been set up, to hear the evidence publicly, at a public inquiry, where all interests may state their views.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member always puts upon my words a construction which is really not intended. I have not in any way indicated—I would not dream of it —that I was endeavouring to put pressure, in the language which he used, on the Tribunal. What I said was that in my submission to them, and in asking for their advice, I dealt with the need for urgency. I did not presume to give them advice. The Tribunal's function is to give me advice and it is not for me to give them advice. I want to make it perfectly plain that, in regard to matters of this magnitude and importance, and the machinery which the Tribunal represents in our public affairs, we do not get anywhere by exaggerating the situation. I want the House to accept it from me that I have asked the Tribunal to advise me and that I have not in any way put pressure upon them. I should not dream of doing that, and, if I did so, I should not expect them to accept it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We really ought to get on now.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On a point of order. May I, with the very greatest respect, Sir, submit to you that during this comparatively modern procedure by which Ministers make statements after Questions by leave of the House—for which the right hon. Gentleman forgot to ask, but I do not complain of that—it has been the custom always

that Members should have the opportunity of interrogation? Is this not particularly so when the House is just about to rise for 10 days? We shall have to visit our constituencies and try to explain to our constituents the contents of this addled nationalised Easter egg.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the House will agree that hon. Members have had ample opportunity for interrogation on this occasion. We are already 25 minutes behind our programme. Private Members' rights in regard to Adjournment debates have already been intruded upon. I hope that hon. Members who are raising subjects on the Adjournment today will each be willing, in the circumstances, to give up a little of their time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I, with great respect, Sir, put this point to you? The House is about to rise for Easter. With the permission of the House the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement of great importance to our constituents. Might I seek your guidance as to whether it would at least be permissible now to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that he will take none of the actions which he foreshadowed under Section 82 of the Transport Act until the House has had an opportunity, as it cannot have one now, to seek assurances from him?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Quite clearly, that is not a point of order.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT)

12.41 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and the very grave statement that the Minister of Transport has made reinforces tremendously the case I want to make today on behalf of a large number of interested bodies and organisations for the raising of the speed limit of heavy commercial vehicles from 20 miles to 30 miles per hour. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement which, although the matter is not finalised, seems to imply that there is now an irrevocable decision to raise railway freight charges, and possibly passenger charges, which will add to the general cost of transport to industry. Without doubt, therefore, industry everywhere will be looking for an avenue of escape, and will want to find that, as far as it can, on the roads. Therefore, if anything can be done to ensure that road transport is efficient and as speedily organised, so much the better.
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by other enactments, lays down that goods vehicles with an unladen weight in excess of three tons are restricted to a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour, whilst those of three tons and under are permitted to travel up to 30 miles an hour. The object of this debate, for which I think there is all-party approval, is to invite the Minister to make an order as soon as may be raising the permitted speed limit of all heavy commercial vehicles, except those fitted with solid tyres or drawing a separate trailer, to the general limit of 30 miles an hour.
I will not weary the House by going back too far into the history of this matter, but opinion has been working up on all sides for the last six or seven years that this would be a desirable reform to make. In 1944 a joint memorandum was presented to the then Minister of Transport by a committee of goods vehicle manufacturers and operators which recommended, in the interests of design and

operation, that this change should be made. Although the views of trade and industry on this subject have been known for a long time, so far there has been no response. In the last year alone, two deputations were taken to the Ministry of Transport, one on 6th January, 1950, to the Parliamentary Secretary, and the other on 23rd May to the right hon. Gentleman himself, at which I had the honour of being present.
In order to show the House how widespread is the demand, I propose to enumerate some of the bodies which were either represented on those deputations or have since attached the policies of their organisations to this reform. They are as follows: The British Road Federation, the Federation of British Industries, the Mansion House Association on Transport, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Road Haulage Association, the Traders' Road Transport Association, the Traders' Traffic Conference, the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I do not know of any organisation of any importance that has anything to do with road transport policy, either passenger or vehicle, which is not interested in this reform.

Mr. Poole: On that point, would not the noble Lord agree that the trade unions who cater for drivers and men employed in the industry have a definite interest in the matter; and would he say which of those support it?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I quite appreciate that, but it would not be right for the hon. Gentleman to maintain that the trade unions are against this, for they have not yet taken a stand on the matter. I will refer to the union side of the matter before I sit down.
There are several main reasons for raising the speed limit of these vehicles, and I propose to deal with each. First, there is an overriding economic reason which links up with what I said at the beginning of my speech. There is no doubt whatever that higher productivity throughout the nation would come from this reform. It is an obvious case and does not need arguing. It is almost impossible to produce statistical evidence as to how much productivity would be raised if these commercial vehicles went faster than they do,


but it is common sense, and it stands to reason, that if this reform were made and schedules were recast accordingly, we would get an increase in productivity which would redound to the benefit of the nation and would possibly lead to cheaper prices.
The general output of industry is needlessly retarded if restrictions are put on the speed of operation of road vehicles, if some vehicles move more slowly down the road than others, and if working schedules are enmeshed in low gear by State regulation. In these days we must have full and frank recognition of the fact that modern road transport exists not merely for the purpose of moving goods from one part of the country to another, but that it is in itself an integral and vital part of the process of production and distribution. The Prime Minister has himself said that transport today is the conveyor belt of industry. He will not thank the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport if that conveyor belt moves too slowly.
Secondly, there is a case to be made for this on grounds of road safety alone, although at first blush it would not appear to be so. There are various factors to consider. There is substantial support for this reform on those grounds. For example, in May, 1947, the Committee on Road Safety, which included five representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and three representatives of the police, issued its final report, paragraph 66 of which includes these words:
Having regard to improvements in braking equipment, we see no objection on grounds of road safety to an increase of the speed limit of 20 miles an hour at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles.
Someone, it may have been the right hon. Gentleman himself, ascertained the views of the local road safety committees on this subject by a letter sent to 1,724 of them. Only 17 of that number replied opposing the increase. The rest tacitly accepted or wrote positively approving it.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): We might as well have the facts correct. The number registering against it was 85.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated this movement and is responisble for collecting the evidence, I will of course accept that.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Will the hon. Member allow me——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I cannot give way. Mr. Deputy-Speaker has already appealed to us to shorten our remarks in view of the time factor.
There is a question of uniformity of traffic speed which, clearly, has its effect upon road safety. Roads today are getting more congested than ever, and it is quite obvious that if overtaking can be avoided as far as possible, if heavy goods vehicles move along the road at a uniform rate and there is no passing of heavy commercial vehicles by light commercial vehicles, we shall reduce some of the risks of accidents. Overtaking is inevitable when one class of vehicle is restricted to a speed below that of other traffic.
Objections have been raised on the question of safety. It is said, for example, that running schedules would be raised to a flat average of 22 miles an hour if this reform were made and that this speed is too fast for built-up areas and perhaps too slow for the open road. I do not, however, know of any responsible organisation which would suggest a flat average speed. It is clearly unworkable, and all those concerned would cast their schedules so that a speed of something less than 22 miles an hour would be done in built-up areas and something greater on the open road. Each route is considered in the light of its own peculiar circumstances and an average speed determined accordingly. For example, if a heavy vehicle is being driven from the London docks to Slough, a much lower average would be scheduled for that route than for one lying mainly through the open country.
Another objection is that there would be irresponsible operators who would take advantage of the raising of the speed limit as an opportunity to set impossible schedules. Again, I do not think there is any evidence whatever for this contention. The great majority of operators of heavy goods vehicles are firms of national repute and they would not be so irresponsible as willingly to involve their drivers and their vehicles, and therefore themselves, in accidents and their consequences.
If this speed limit of 30 miles an hour were made statutory, there is no question at all that drivers as a whole would be


less accident-prone than they are today. Nothing is more wearying to the nerves of drivers of these heavy goods vehicles than to have to travel at something under 20 miles an hour, uphill and downhill, and changing gear all the time in order to manœuvre and to pass other vehicles. If there were a steady forward speed of 30 miles an hour, the amount of gear changing would quite obviously be very much less.
Some parties seem to think that these enormous vehicles would come thundering down the road at vast speeds, scattering men, women and children—and, perhaps, chickens, too—in all directions, but I cannot imagine anything of the kind happening. These vehicles nowadays have braking and other systems of great complexity and effectiveness and they are entirely as manageable as some of the public service vehicles which can go at 30 miles an hour.
There is a distinct anomaly on the subject of public service vehicles. I have a graph which is produced in a most interesting document, the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, of 12th January, 1951, dealing with a lecture by Dr. W. H. Glanville, of the Road Safety and Research Laboratory. In a graph on page 165, he plots the speed in miles an hour of vehicles against the braking distance in feet. He shows clearly that a 5-ton unladen vehicle is safer than a bus or heavy public service vehicle. For instance, at 30 miles an hour an ordinary motor car, such as we all drive, can stop in 50 ft. and a 5-ton unladen lorry in 60 ft., whereas a bus requires 80 ft. That seems to me to be clear evidence of an anomaly, which could be rectified by raising the speed limit for these heavy vehicles. As to the standards of braking, these vehicles are now built to the highest engineering standards and can be inspected by Ministry of Transport officials or by the police at any time, and there does not seem to be any danger in allowing them to travel faster.
That brings me to a point about the police. There is no doubt whatever that today the police are not prosecuting those who contravene the law. They cannot do so when the law, as in this case. is an ass. Nobody can expect modern vehicles of comprehensive design and with the braking that I have described, to go along the road at 20 miles an hour, and they are

not doing so—we all know that. They are going beyond 20 miles an hour; and the moment we cut through the statutory speed limit because it is ridiculous, the inhibitions of the drivers are released and they go much faster than they ought to go, and very often over 30 miles an hour.
If we were to increase the speed limit to 30 miles an hour, we would make it possible for the police actively to prosecute in an enormous number of cases those drivers of vehicles who are contravening the law, and that itself would act as a brake upon the drivers who go beyond 30 miles an hour and would bring them back to the proper limit. I assure the House—it must be known to all hon. Members from experience—that if that were done, the speed limit would be observed.
Thirdly, as a major case for the change, there is the question of vehicle design. Paragraph 66 of the Final Report of the Committee on Road Safety considered the arbitrary distinction in respect of speed limits between light and heavy goods vehicles as having an undesirable effect on both design and operation. The emphasis on light weight, to keep vehicles within the higher speed category, serves to differentiate home and export goods vehicles, and the elimination of this factor would make greater standardisation of models possible and so lead to manufacturing economies.
The higher speed limit would also assist manufacture for export by bringing the speed of vehicles used in this country nearer to that of vehicles in other countries, where high cruising speeds are permitted. This is the only country, so far as I know, with a speed as low as 20 miles an hour for these vehicles. In the United States of America, they travel at 50 to 55 miles an hour; in France, 31 miles an hour, and in Holland 37½ miles an hour.
Finally, I wish to say a word about the position of the unions. I do not know that we can do more than express a fervent hope for support from the unions in the interests of productivity, and as the general industrial and economic situation of the country gets graver, the case for union support improves. Some sections of drivers have claimed that all the benefit from this reform should be passed on to them. Clearly if we did that, there would be no advantage whatever in


making the change. On the other hand, I am sure that all in this House would agree that the men's earnings must not suffer, nor must drivers be asked to spend longer hours upon the road for the same wages as they are getting today, unless, of course, that was all part and parcel of a great nation-wide movement to work longer and harder for the same wages.
The result of this reform would be certain cash sums—no one can estimate how much—being released to the road transport industry. It seems a matter for straightforward negotiation between the employer and unions to see that these sums are properly apportioned. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman would not today wish to give a firm assurance that he is to legislate next week, or next month, but I do not want him to say either that the final outcome of this matter must wait until the employers and unions have got together. That would merely maintain what the mathematicians call "a third variant" and no one would be able to move at all. I should like him to say that, whatever happens in the matter between the two sides of industry, he will legislate at a moment of his own choosing, and, perhaps, that will have a beneficial effect in getting them together to discuss the new schedules of operation.
This House in the last five weeks has not done a very great deal to help forward the country in its perplexing situation. Here is a chance of making a small, but notable, reform to reduce costs and to increase our competitive efficiency in the world, and I hope the House as a whole will approve of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): As the House knows, we have lost 25 minutes of the time for the five Adjournment debates, and as of the five debates, this one is the longest, I think it should suffer the 25 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me finish, please. I thought first of cutting each Adjournment debate by five minutes, but if we did that, it would leave the last Member only 25 minutes instead of half an hour. If we take the time off this debate the four hon. Members and the Ministers who are to reply to them will be coming in at the times for which they have been warned.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With great respect, I think that is a little unfair to

this subject and to those who have made a special study of it and wish to take part in the debate. Could you compromise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps take a quarter of an hour of our time and another 10 minutes off somewhere else?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the noble Lord will work that out and bring his suggestion to me, I shall be very glad to consider it.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: In view of what has transpired, I do not propose to detain the House too long on this question. I want to support the suggestions which have been put forward in connection with the speed limit. I am concerned with the unification of speed limits of comparable vehicles because I believe that one of the biggest factors of danger on the road is that comparable vehicles are not comparable from the point of view of the limitation placed on their speed.
That also has a deterrent effect upon the engineering industry, with which I am principally concerned, because it tends to throw the weight of balance in the construction of vehicles on to the lighter—and, at high speed with heavy loads—less safe type of vehicle and place at a disadvantage the heavy type of vehicle specially constructed to carry heavy loads. This trouble goes back to the original Road and Rail Traffic Act which made an arbitrary distinction between the laden and unladen weight of vehicles, placing the emphasis on the unladen, whereas it is obvious that what matters is the laden weight as far as road surface and efficiency of the vehicle are concerned.
One may have a vehicle of less than three tons unladen weight which is able to travel at 30 m.p.h. legally carrying a weight which in total is the equivalent of 12 tons gross. On the other hand, a machine of five tons unladen weight which by virtue of the limitation on the total weight for a four-wheeled vehicle, would be able to carry only seven tons pay-load, making a gross 12 tons, is limited to 20 m.p.h. That does not make sense, but it is part of the Act. It is something to which I hope the Minister will give attention at some time, in order to remedy the anomaly.
The heavy vehicles section of the engineering industry, which employs a greater proportion of skilled labour than is employed in the lighter type of vehicle construction, is being penalised. Consequently, the better class vehicle is purchased less often than it ought to be and the lighter vehicle is sold more readily. These are factors of great importance to the engineering industry and of importance also to the general conduct of industry in the country. If these vehicles travelled at the same speed, it would mean that a person wanting to purchase a vehicle would naturally purchase the best vehicle, not the vehicle which would give him a higher speed. It is well known that the rate of obsolescence of the heavy vehicle is much less than the rate of obsolescence of the light vehicle. The heavy vehicle lasts longer, and in the end needs less maintenance. The driver is generally more happy with a heavy vehicle because he can drive with less trouble and in greater comfort. It has a more powerful engine and it is not necessary to change gear so often, which is one of the most fatiguing factors in driving.
The question of safety has been touched on and the noble Lord referred to a lighter vehicle passing a heavier vehicle. It is not only that, but it is also a question of a heavy vehicle passing another heavy vehicle—one doing about 16 miles per hour and another trying to keep to the limit but to keep up to 20 m.p.h. It has been the experience of many hon. Members that vehicles go along two abreast for 300 or 400 yards or more and this is a fruitful source of accidents, about which something ought to be done.
The question whether the vehicles travel at 20 or 30 miles per hour is not the question with which I am mainly concerned. I am concerned that they should travel at an equal speed. I am concerned also with the bus, which is not safer than the heavy vehicle, as has been amply demonstrated by the noble Lord on eminent advice, when braking at speeds of 30 miles an hour. If anything, the answer is in favour of the heavy commercial vehicle, because the centre of gravity is very much lower than it is on the bus and therefore, liability to overturn is thereby reduced. That makes the heavy vehicle at comparable speed safer than a double-decker bus, and there is

no case on safety grounds for this difference in the limitation of one vehicle as against another. The limiting factor now in regard to the light vehicle is peculiar. It is concerned with the weight within the 12-ton gross which the size of the tyres can carry without bursting, and that is a sad commentary upon the regulation.
I would also touch on the question of home and export trade, because I have seen this problem in operation. We have done this in the lighter car market. What is required for the export market is vehicles of higher horse-power than we have been in the habit of constructing in this country. Because of the limitations of taxation, we had to produce lighter engines than were generally available and required for overseas markets. That was recognised, and arising out of that recognition we had an alteration in the system of taxation. As a result of that, larger engines are now being fitted to cars generally in this country, and our export markets are correspondingly benefiting, because instead of having to construct two vehicles or two types of engines, manufacturers are now able to have one production line where formerly they had two. Consequently, our ability to compete in the overseas markets is very much better than it was.
Turning to the question of heavy commercial vehicles, what is required for the overseas market is a vehicle with a powerful engine, which is generally what is required in this country to do properly the job for which it is intended. The numbers of heavy commercial vehicles involved would not permit of the production of two types of engines, which means the use here of an engine which is capable of a very much higher speed than is permitted in this country. In other words, it is not operated economically here, because it is not used to full advantage. It seems to me that on those grounds the machine ought to be properly used.
It is equally true of the heavy vehicle —I have had some experience of it— that driving it at 30 m.p.h maximum when it is laden is very much less fatiguing over a long distance than is driving the same vehicle at 20 m.p.h. Hon. Members know what happens in the case of a car. If one has a little momentum at the bottom


of a hill, one can go a good way up it, if not to the top, without changing gear. There is no difference in the physical effect of driving a heavy vehicle from that involved in driving a car. If it is travelling at approximately 30 miles an hour at the bottom of a hill, the driver will be able to get very much nearer the top before changing gear than is the case if he is keeping to the present limit. It is a great advantage over long distances—say, journeys from London to Manchester, and even more so beyond Manchester, as the hills are very much worse further north— not to have constant gear-changing. For that reason it is desirable that the proposed change should be effected.
I wish to deal with the question of safety which has been raised. I do not believe it to be the real crux of the question. I believe that the real crux of the question is the failure of the employers and trade unions to come to terms upon what the schedules ought to be, and what the conditions of employment ought to be, if such a change were made. It is no secret that the matter has been broached over a fairly long period and that that has been the main factor. A short time ago every Member was favoured with a copy of a magazine called "Headlight." It is an unofficial publication which is not sponsored by the Transport and General Workers' Union, and there is nothing in it which is claimed to represent the union's views. I agree with some parts of it. The interesting feature of the magazine is that the whole evidence it contains relates to the safety factor and to the danger raised by an increase in the speed.
When one turns to the back page, one notes that it contains some derogatory references to the Transport and General Workers' Union, with which I do not agree. It goes on to say,
The road transport industry has been thoroughly neglected in these essentials by the trade unions."—
that is, proposals in regard to the workers—
So let us have first things first: Close the industry to all newcomers while there are still thousands of drivers unemployed."—
I was not aware that thousands of drivers were unemployed—
Retiring age should be fixed at 60. Adequate pensions should be provided for these men. Second men should be employed upon all vehicles carrying valuable loads and eventually upon all vehicles with a carrying

capacity of 5 tons and over. Wages should be revised so that the lorry driver can earn a reasonable living wage without having to work overtime. Once these improvements have become firmly established, increased speed would not mean redundancy, for, as the limitation of manpower within the industry would tend to supply only a sufficiency of labour, wages and conditions should improve, and an increased speed limit coupled with the additional remuneration the men would then be in a position to demand, would be necessary in order to cope with the traffic.
In other words, it advocates the creation of conditions in which it would be absolutely essential to have an increase in the speed limit.
I do not wish to deal with the merits of the whole of those demands. Some of them appear to be very good and reasonable. But what I have read puts into proper perspective what is the real difficulty in the question of the speed limit. I should not be in favour of increasing the speed limit or of altering the conditions of labour of the workers engaged in the transport industry if it meant worsening their conditions.
It has always been an accepted fact in an industry in which incentive bonuses are paid, that if a man is required to work harder, or works harder of his own volition, he should receive some additional benefit from it. It is obvious that if a man is to do what has been a 10 hours' journey in eight hours, he ought to receive the advantage of those additional hours either in the form of additional remuneration or shorter working hours. That seems the logical thing to do, and the sooner employers and trade unions get together in this matter and come to some broad conclusions on principles, the better it will be for all concerned.
The only other point to which I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is the question of schedules. An alteration in the speed limit will in itself make no alteration to the existing schedules. They can be altered only provided that the alterations are agreed to by both sides of the industry. I believe that the necessary machinery exists by which such agreement can be reached and disputes can be settled. So a variation in the speed limit would, it seems to me, have the effect that the persons concerned on both sides of the industry would have to get together and agree on what was a fair, equitable and sensible arrangement to both sides of the industry before they altered existing


schedules. Accordingly, there appear to be adequate safeguards in regard to that aspect of the matter. But unless something is now done to make an order, the two sides will remain a long way apart.
It is important in the general interests of the national economy that this industry should work efficiently. That is all I am concerned abouzt—the efficient operation of the industry, without the bar that at present exists against the producers of heavy commercial vehicles, which is important to the country as a whole. Finally, it would have the effect, which from the point of view of this House is vitally important, of bringing the law back into repute.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It has been agreed that this debate should go on until 2.15 p.m., that the next debate, to be initiated by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) should go on from 2.15 to 3.10 p.m., that the debate which is to be initiated by the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) should go on from 3.10 until 4.0 p.m., and that the times of the two final half-hour debates should not be altered.

1.19 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: There are many interesting points which could be raised about the important subject which my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has raised, but in view of the shortness of the time available for this debate, I will confine myself to one point only. I wish to speak from the point of view of the road user in the rural areas, and particularly in regard to Cornwall.
All hon. Members who have motored in Cornwall will, I think, agree with me in congratulating the Cornwall County Council on the high standard of maintenance which they achieve on their roads. Their road surfaces are excellent, not only on the main roads between the main towns, but on many of the side roads also. They maintain a series of studs and cats' eyes down the middle of the roads which easily distinguish the near and off sides of the roads by day and by night. They have done a great deal to ease off the corners at dangerous crossroads, and to do away with walls and hedges and substitute fencing.
There is one thing, however, that they cannot do. In a county such as Cornwall, it is inevitable that a large number of the roads should be narrow and winding. It would be an impossibly expensive task to straighten and widen many of the roads, because unfortunately many of them appear to have been designed in the first instance by the cow which, perambulating round some ancient field, or making its way through woodlands up the hills, has made a path which man has afterwards followed, and it has gradually become a road.

Mr. Pannell: That was "The Right Road for Britain" in those days.

Mr. Wilson: This is noticeably so in the picturesque and beautiful district known as Roseland, which is entirely situated in my Division, where every road takes a right-angled turn every few hundred yards. There is another stretch on the main road between St. Austell and Truro, where the road winds up from the little village of Tresilian, up what is in effect a narrow gorge, with on the one hand a steep wooded bank and in some places a rocky precipice, and on the other a very steep decline going down to a stream. Nothing can be done about that road without colossal expense, either to widen or to straighten it, yet that road carries a very heavy amount of traffic. One has only to go on to that road at any time of any day or night to see what happens on this stretch of about a mile and a half of narrow winding road. If any slow-moving vehicle is going up or coming down that road and is maintaining a slow pace, there immediately queues up behind it a long line of private motorcars, motor coaches and buses extending sometimes half-way down this stretch of road—simply because there is this one vehicle meandering up or coming down.
That results in a very serious temptation to a driver, either behind the slow-moving vehicle or somewhere further down the queue, to cut out and try to get ahead of the slow vehicle. I have seen that happen time after time, but one is bound to meet a corner on that road very shortly, and I have seen cars cut out in an attempt to get round a slow vehicle and meet something else coming the other way, and it is very difficult to avoid an accident. I cannot say how


many such accidents have actually taken place on that stretch of road, but it is certainly a very dangerous practice. The only practical way of overcoming this difficulty, in view of the expense which would be necessary to straighten or widen the road, is to keep a steady flow of traffic on that type of road, of which there are many.
As has already been pointed out, the safety factor on the roads is by no means only a matter of speed. With efficient brakes, an efficient road surface and a properly arranged camber, there is no reason why a heavy vehicle should not maintain the same speed as some of the lighter vehicles. Then it might be possible to maintain a regular flow of traffic, which would do much to overcome this difficulty caused by the delays that happen on narrow roads when a slow-moving vehicle is in front; it would do much to ease that difficulty, and at the same time improve safety rather than have the reverse effect. For those reasons, I am glad to support my noble Friend in the proposal he has made.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) gave us a very nice short description of the area he has the honour to represent. I am not too sure from his description of the winding, narrow roads of Cornwall that one can argue that it would be even possible, let alone safe, for vehicles to travel on them at a very high speed—say 30 miles an hour. I am not sure that his own county authority may not, because of the dangers of the road, want to erect restrictive signs limiting the speed to 20 or 25 miles an hour.
I have no complaint about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter). He frankly admitted that he was speaking from the point of view of production and of the interests of motor vehicle producers. I also confess that I am speaking for the people who would have to drive at 30 miles an hour, and whose interest I suggest is far more important that that of the motor vehicle producers.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the proposed

further increase of rail freight charges, and he asserted that the Minister's statement strengthened his case for the increased speed limit. He went on to say that, because of the increased rail freight charges, it would be necessary for manufacturers and industry generally to try to find a way out from the railways to the roads in order that they could economise on transport costs. It is clear and indisputable that the noble Lord, and those who support his proposal to the Minister this morning, are actuated mainly from the point of view of the profits of the industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I did not say one single thing about profits, if the hon. Gentleman means financial profits. I was thinking of the higher productivity of the country.

Mr. McLeavy: I gave way to the noble Lord, although he did not have the courtesy to give way to me when he was speaking. I think it is not unfair to represent the whole of the case he put before the House as one based mainly upon the financial aspect of transport.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Nonsense.

Mr. McLeavy: The noble Lord is entitled to his view, but I hope he does not object to someone else putting his own construction on that speech.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Give some evidence for it.

Mr. McLeavy: I wish to make three points of objection, which I ask the Minister seriously to consider before he thinks of altering the speed limit. First, an increase in the speed of heavy vehicles would be against the best interests of road safety. Secondly, the health of those engaged in the industry should not be endangered, or their risk of accidents increased. Thirdly, no change should be made without the full approval of the trades union concerned, and without the construction of motor roads, which I regard as essential if we are to increase the speed limit of heavy vehicles.
On the first point about road safety, it would be a crime to increase further the danger on the roads. I call attention to a speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Lord Lucas. It was reported in the "News Chronicle" of


Saturday, 3rd February, 1951. It was given a great headline:
Lesson road users must learn.
In his address to the Roadfarers' Club at a lunch in London, Lord Lucas forecast a toll on British roads of 6,000 dead and well over 250,000 injured this year. In other speeches on road safety, the Parliamentary Secretary has made what is a serious and alarming statement that, in reference to road accidents, he was at his wit's end.
Let us look at the views, not of anyone interested either in private enterprise or in the workers in the industry, but of Lord Chief Justice Goddard. When at the Old Bailey he was sentencing three men for the manslaughter of a pedestrian who had been knocked down by a lorry, he made a statement which I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind. This is an absolutely impartial viewpoint which ought to be considered. Lord Goddard said:
You have been convicted of manslaughter at a time when the roads of this country are being strewn with dead and dying.
That is the view of the Lord Chief Justice.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: What size of vehicle was it?

Mr. McLeavy: I will not give way.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is not evidence against making a change.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: It has nothing to do with this question.

Mr. McLeavy: That may be the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view; it is not mine. I sat and listened to the noble Lord without interrupting. I ask for the same decency to be extended to me.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman talks sense, he will not be interrupted.

Mr. McLeavy: The unfortunate fact is that hon. Members opposite think that common sense can emerge only from their side of the House. I speak as one who has been associated with the road transport industry for the whole of his life. I speak from experience. I am not speaking from a brief submitted to me by vested interests. I understand exactly what the position is.
My second point is about the health of road transport workers and the risk of increased accidents. This is most important. I have known men who have not been able to complete their normal service in the industry because they have broken down in health, usually suffering from nerves because of the constant strain of driving for six or seven days a week. Many men have had to be put on jobs in the garages with a consequent reduction in wages because of their disability.
The risk of accidents is another important factor. We should not forget that when a man is driving a vehicle, whether it be a light car, an omnibus or a lorry, he is constantly in danger of committing errors of being involved in accidents, and hauled before the magistrates' courts and, of being in serious cases of manslaughter, before the major courts. Drivers are in danger not only of losing their licences or their right to carry on their vocation, but also of being sent to prison if evidence proves that they have been negligent. It is important that we should weigh up these matters very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southall suggested that the fact that we increased the speed limit would not materially alter the running schedules. From my experience of working out and negotiating running schedules, I would say that the schedules for heavy vehicles are worked out, in the main after consideration of the legal speed. If the limit is increased from 20 to 30 miles an hour, the schedules will be reconsidered, and adjustments will be made.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Southall said. He said that the mere changing of the speed limit would not affect the schedules. Alterations in the schedules would have to be negotiated afterwards.

Mr. McLeavy: That does not contradict my point. I have not misrepresented my hon. Friend. He said precisely what I attributed to him. He said that there would have to be an adjustment of schedules, and that that would be a question for negotiation between employer and employee. Let us make no mistake about the schedules. They are always based upon what might be called office calculations. They do not always pay due regard to the many serious problems


which arise on the roads. There are all kinds of delays. It is suggested by those who want the speed limit to be increased that drivers are travelling at 30 miles an hour now, and that they are bringing the law into disrepute. I suggest that if we increase the limit to 30 miles an hour, many of these men will be compelled to travel at over 30 miles an hour in order to complete their running schedules.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Nonsense.

Mr. McLeavy: It is not nonsense. If a driver is delayed on the road, it is all very well for hon. Members to say that provision is made for him to make a reasonable explanation to his employer, but I know how very often the employer does not look with a very friendly eye upon even a reasonable explanation. There is a danger that the employer will say, as indeed he has said on many occasions, "You need not have been delayed so long; you may have had some little delay, but this has been too much." I say to hon. Members opposite and to my right hon. Friend that it is not quite so easy, from the operative point of view, to dismiss the question of running schedules as something which is unimportant.
The third point concerns the trade unions and the question of the construction of motor roads, which I believe is vitally important. I believe that, with the volume of traffic which we have on the roads today, the construction of motor roads is absolutely essential, not only for public safety, but also in the interests of both drivers and the industry concerned. I think that, before we tackle this question of increasing the speed limit, which will inevitably mean greater risks to the pedestrians—[Interruption.]Of course, it will mean that, because of the fact that, if we allow our motor vehicles to travel at 30 miles an hour, we shall have private cars overtaking them and a greater number of accidents because of the greater speed. The overtaking of vehicles is very often the cause of accidents on the roads, and we shall increase the volume of accidents if we allow heavy vehicles to travel at 30 miles an hour. There is always a tendency for the ordinary driver of a motor car to say, "I am going to pass this heavy lorry, and get ahead."
In conclusion, I want again to urge upon the Minister that this is a most important matter. [Interruption.]There have been three speeches in the debate in support of a change and I am the only hon. Member so far who has spoken against it, and I think I am entitled to make my own case, unless the Opposition take the view that no case should be heard except their own. Let it be made perfectly clear, both to the Minister and to hon. Members opposite, that the right of the men in the industry to have their health and their well-being protected is the overriding factor in this matter, and not merely the point of view of the vested interests, which are always able to organise a plausible case either inside or outside this House.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Remnant: I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) has taken the line which he has taken, because up to that moment we were discussing this matter in an extremely moderate way. I should like to say that, of course, the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to his own recollection of the opening speech in this debate by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), which he made, in my view, in extremely moderate as well as telling terms. But my recollection is that he excluded from his speech entirely the question of the profit or loss that the operators of the vehicles would make, and the only reference to that subject which he made was in connection with the productivity of the country as a whole.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East made some remarks in regard to the injuries and deaths caused on the roads. That the figures are much bigger than we would like, we entirely agree, and if the hon. Member can suggest any means of reducing them, the whole House will offer not only its support but its active help. While I agree that that is so, what the hon. Gentleman did not prove, to my satisfaction, at any rate, was to what extent the heavy vehicles which we are now discussing contributed to accidents.
In my own experience of the roads— and I travel considerably on the trunk roads which are used by heavy goods vehicles—the drivers of these vehicles are the knights of the road. I would far rather be behind a heavy goods vehicle


than behind light vehicles and cars. I know perfectly well that if I pull out and show myself in the driver's mirror, I shall not only get signs, but the right signs, and at the right time, as well as signs that can be relied upon. I should like to pay that tribute to them.
I am concerned to know whether heavy goods vehicles contribute to the number of accidents more than other classes of vehicles. In my own experience, the trouble arises mainly from the type of vehicle which I drive myself; that is to say, a car or a light van. I think they are more to blame. If I may take up the point about overtaking which was raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and which seems to worry him——

Mr. McLeavy: A little while ago, the hon. Gentleman asked me for a valuable suggestion on how to avoid road accidents. If I may make it for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, it would be to restrict "C" licences and take some of the unnecessary traffic off the roads.

Mr. Remnant: I do not think that that suggestion is really one that calls for an answer in this debate.
I want to deal with the question of overtaking. There is some evidence here, though I do not know how much reliance can be placed upon it. It comes from a well-known body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who, when making tests of heavy goods vehicles on observed journeys of 100 miles, found that, when the vehicles were running at 20 miles an hour, the average number of overtakings, if I may use that word, was 183, whereas when the speed was raised to 30 miles an hour the number of other vehicles overtaking was reduced to 42. That seems to me to show that the number of overtakings is at least reduced at the higher speed, and that is particularly valuable in respect of three-way or two-way roads.
After all, we must all agree that the majority of our trunk roads are not as wide as they ought to be to carry the traffic on them, and that seems to prove that the more we can even out the flow on the road, the less the danger of accidents, and that, by increasing the speed limit to 30 miles an hour, we shall reduce the number of overtakings, and therefore reduce the risk of accidents from these vehicles.
Other hon. Members have quite rightly referred to the strain on the drivers through more frequent gear changes, but there are two aspects of the matter which have not so far been mentioned, and to which I should like to refer. One is the tendency of the driver to allow his attention to wander if he is driving at a slower speed rather than at a reasonable running speed in the circumstances If I may take my own case in driving a car on the open road, if I were keeping down to 20 miles an hour, I should be much more inclined to look at what was going on round about me than at the road in front of me. In the same way, the tendency with heavy goods vehicles is for the driver's attention to wander rather more at a speed which is lower than it need be, and which was justified when engines were not as efficient as they are now and when braking power was not so good.
Another point which has not so far been mentioned is that the driver gets much less vibration at about 30 miles an hour than he gets at 20 miles an hour. I do not know what are the mechanical reasons for that, but driving at the higher speed tends to lessen the fatigue suffered by a driver on a long journey.
I am connected with one company which has a considerable number of these heavy vehicles on the road, and I believe that the drivers do everything possible to keep to the regulation speeds and loads. I once asked what difference it would make to the journeys and to the drivers if the speed limit were raised from 20 to 30 miles an hour. I was told that it would make no difference to the number of journeys per vehicle per day, but that it would enable the drivers to sleep in their own beds at night instead of having to sleep away from home. That point is surely one in favour of raising the speed limit, provided there is otherwise no risk in so doing.
If additional evidence were required, we have only to look at Paragraph 66 of the Road Safety Report published in 1937 to see that there is no objection on grounds of road safety to increasing the speed for heavy vehicles from 20 to 30 miles an hour. Therefore, I feel that the raising of the speed limit, as suggested by my hon. Friend the noble Lord, could safely be done, largely because of three things— increased engine efficiency, increased braking power, and the increased skill of


the drivers. It would not only lead to the greater comfort of the drivers, but would lessen rather than increase the danger of accidents.

1.53 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: The first thing I want to say, speaking as one who has a very strong trade union affiliation with this matter, is that it is not a trade union question but a public question, and that what follows from public action is a matter that should be settled in the normal way by negotiation between the employers, on the one hand, and the workers on the other. If there was anything in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) about which I felt I could complain, it would be that it was couched in terms of mass unemployment when, in fact, we are now in a period of full employment, when a man is perfectly able to sack his boss or to negotiate with him on something like level terms.
Before I came to this House, I worked with a firm which had a very big coach fleet in the summer and a very big goods fleet in the winter. The men who drove the coaches in the summer were the same men who drove the lorries in the winter. In the summer, they drove the coaches at 30 miles an hour, with all the attendant increased volume of summer traffic, but when driving the goods vehicles in the winter—vehicles identical with those they drove in the summer, except that they had goods bodies instead of coach bodies— they were suddenly called upon to do so at a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour. Human nature being what it is, and drivers being what they are, that did not happen at all, and the law was brought into contempt, as, indeed, it is on this subject.
The worst case of manslaughter with which I was personally concerned—as an expert witness in the High Court—was that of an over-bodied and over-loaded two-ton lorry in which two people were killed. We were not told about whom Lord Goddard was speaking when he made the remarks which were quoted earlier to the House. It may be that he was referring to the driver of a Rolls-Bentley, or to one of the bright-eyed boys on the Kingston By-Pass, driving at 60 or 70 miles an hour. No evidence has been submitted to us today in this connection. Regarding the over-loading of

lighter vehicles—because the heavy vehicles are at this disadvantage—one can see in any of the trade papers every week advertisements of helper springs and body strengthening devices, which are not made by the makers of the vehicles, but by outside manufacturers, in order to increase loads.
The consequence is that we get overloaded and over-bodied vehicles liable to turn over. From every point of view, the law at present gives a definite advantage and encouragement, not only to the careless driver, but to that type of haulier who buys a vehicle that is not suitable for the job it is expected to do. Consequently, we get this curious contradiction. It is undoubtedly true that the best commercial vehicle is the heavy vehicle. What my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said on this matter was perfectly true. Looked at from the point of view of workmanship, the proportion of skilled labour that goes into producing the heavy vehicle is far greater than that which goes into the lighter vehicle. Greater care is taken regarding braking efficiency and the centre of gravity of the heavy vehicle, and the finished product is a far more scientific job than the light vehicle which clutters up our roads today.
Recent figures prove that in the City of Leeds, 25 per cent, of the road accidents were caused by uncontrolled dogs. The Minister gave a very curious answer the other day when he suggested that in order to get over this danger, which is not peculiar to Leeds, but is experienced throughout the country, a notice should be sent out with dog licences calling attention to this fact. Of course, the two objections to that would be that, in the main, the uncontrolled dog wears no collar, and, secondly, that most dogs, even if they have owners, cannot read.
It is not only the Transport and General Workers' Union which is concerned in this matter. I have an interest as secretary of the Engineers Group in this House. I remember when the last Budget proposals were brought forward and it was suggested that commercial vehicles should bear Purchase Tax at 33⅓ per cent., all the shop stewards and trade unions throughout the motor trade drew attention to the fact that such a tax could lead to gross over-loading of


such vehicles, because, by comparison with the lighter types, the heavy vehicles had been at a disadvantage for many years owing to their maximum speed limit of 20 miles an hour.
What they were trying to say, of course, was that such an increase in Purchase Tax would have inflicted a still greater disadvantage on this type of vehicle, and would have been an encouragement to over-load still more. Now, that was put before the executive council of the union, and it was forwarded to the Parliamentary Group here as the policy of the trade union. This policy did not spring from any vested interest, except the shop stewards of the places concerned. As my time is up I will not read the long list of firms that were associated with this, although I have the details in my hand. I will merely say that it did not spring even from the official trade union level. It has sprung from the floor of the factories, and I have just as much right to speak here today in the name of the men who make the vehicles, as have those people who claim to speak in the name of the men who drive them.

2.0 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): We have had an exceedingly useful discussion on this subject. It is of some value to me to collect the reactions of hon. Members to this proposal. One could wish that the debate had taken place in circumstances in which we could have got the expression of opinion of more hon. Members. Nevertheless. I sincerely hope that the report of this debate will be read and that the debate will advance the consideration of this subject.
I am not myself in disagreement with the general trend of opinion that has been expressed today. I think I have only one or two specific points to answer. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), pressed me to indicate whether I contemplated any effective action in the future, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), put to me two or three specific points of substance which, I know, exercise the minds of the men concerned. I shall endeavour to reply to those.
First, I will deal with the problem of safety, and in doing so I am taking up the specific point of my hon. Friend the

Member for Bradford, East. I think everyone will agree that the safety aspect is a matter of very great concern to the Minister, because it is the most distressing and disturbing administrative problem with which he has to deal. I think that we do not get on with this problem and that we do not solve it by retaining the prejudices that surround all speed problems in this country. What I think everyone must appreciate is that every citizen in this country is a motorist today. That is a thing we must impress on our minds. It is not just the person with a private car who is a motorist. We use public service vehicles, and our goods are brought to us in goods lorries. Therefore, no citizen of this country can escape the fact that we are in the motor age, and we must accept collective responsibility for approaching these problems and trying to get a solution with as little prejudice as possible in our minds.
The first thing I have to consider is this. What is the number of vehicles and what are the types of vehicles involved in a proposal of this kind? How do they compare with the other vehicles in relation to safety requirements? As a matter of fact, they do not come out of the examination badly. They come out very well indeed. There were, roughly, 78,500 vehicles of over three tons of unladen weight in this country on 30th September, 1949. The next point to be considered is the age of these vehicles. Do they represent a modern type of vehicle in construction and braking power? In other words, is it a good fleet? I find that three-quarters of them are comparatively new registrations—post-war registrations in the period from 1942 to 1949.
We all know that replacement, both by the individual and by ordinary commercial concerns, has been difficult in the period, and there is a kind of feeling among the general public that many of the vehicles on the roads today are obsolescent. It is assumed that that applies to these vehicles. As a matter of fact, it applies to these vehicles less than is the general rule, and the process of modernisation of the fleet is going on very rapidly. In 1950 there were 10,000 new vehicles of this class registered. So I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that we are discussing here one of the best categories of motor vehicles—a fleet that is essentially up-to-date.
The next point, which was made in several speeches, is that the drivers of the heavy lorries are undoubtedly the best drivers we have in the country. I think that is generally recognised; and so we are not dealing with an indifferent or a careless type of person.

Mr. McLeavy: Then do not kill them.

Mr. Barnes: I am not going to do so. They are too precious. We have to look after them. There is no question of killing them. However, whilst it is the duty of my hon. Friend—and I see this—to look after certain interests of the men, yet they must not encroach on the field of public rights—the right of the public generally to share in the advancement of the science of this industry, which is the motoring industry.
The third aspect of safety is that my own Department, when this matter was acute, referred it to the Road Safety Committee. Several hon. Members have quoted the fact that my own National Safety Committee, which has to advise me on matters of this character, expressed itself as satisfied that this proposal would not contravene road safety. I did correct the noble Lord because this is subject, as all changes of this character are subject, to agitation, some of which is genuine and some of which is not genuine; but the number of local safety committees that have indicated to me their opposition, over the last three or four years, is about 85, while the total number of road safety committees is 600. Therefore, in view of that fact, I can say that the opposition is not of a volume that, in my view, overrules the considered judgment of my National Committee that looks at all these matters and gives me general guidance.
I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East that, after giving this matter very full consideration, I do not think that, on balance, it would increase the danger on the roads. Irritation—psychology—is a most important contributory factor in road accidents. I do not find that heavy goods vehicles are involved in accidents to the same extent as other vehicles and other categories of vehicles on the roads.
Now I come to the health and safety of the men. That is a matter of extreme importance. I would, however, suggest that it is difficult for the Minister, in making regulations, to deal with a matter

of this kind. It would require something more than a regulation approved by an affirmative Resolution of this House for me to deal with things like the effect of working conditions on the health of the men. That appears to me to be a function of the trade union primarily, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, I should like to say, has one of the best records of trade unions in this country in matters of that kind. I can recollect —and I think that this is really the root of the difficulty—that only a relatively short while ago the men in this group in this industry suffered very bad conditions indeed. Their conditions were amongst the worst prevailing in this country. They had very long hours, impossible schedules and they were subjected to all kinds of bad conditions. Relatively speaking, they have only just emerged from those conditions. The Transport and General Workers' Union played a very great part in raising the conditions of the men to their present status.
I do not think that there is any possibility of their reverting to the former state of affairs. Indeed, I say that the community generally is entitled to look at our modern system of organisation and to the joint negotiating machinery—one side representing the men and the other the employers—to negotiate matters of this kind. Parliament cannot do it, the Minister cannot do it. It is my view that an industry like transport does not yield improvement in productive processes as readily, steadily and consecutively as does a manufacturing industry. There is a responsibility on both the trade union representatives and the employers' representatives, when any opportunity comes along, to improve the efficiency and the economy of the industry.
Another point put to me was that I should not consider introducing a regulation of this kind until the motor-road scheme was completed. No one has been keener than I to advance the idea of motor-road construction in this country, but we are all aware that the financial circumstances of today do not permit even the commencement of such schemes. My attitude to this has been, as it has been on a good many of these matters where safety factors are involved, that it is desirable to take Parliament, the public, the Press and the trade unions with me. Better results are achieved if


everyone co-operates. If in an industry the employers and trade unions do not accept their responsibilities, then after a reasonable time we must make our decision irrespective of them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what he intends to do? Are we to have a regulation?

Mr. Barnes: I do not intend to give a decision of that character today. I am hoping that this debate will facilitate an agreement in the spirit of the final words that I used.

HIGHER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION

2.13 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I am glad to be given an opportunity of discussing a matter which is engaging the interest of an increasing number of people, and which was recently the subject of a debate of some hours in another place. In introducing this subject of higher technological education, I shall necessarily cover a wide range, and I will make my remarks as brief and as concentrated as possible, so that other Members may have an opportunity of making at least a short contribution to the debate.
The people of this country are demanding a high standard of life. We do not object to that. Hon. Members on this side of the House taught them in the past to demand it. The people of any country cannot have a high standard of life unless there is a high standard of internal production. People cannot have sufficient food, clothing, housing, amusements and education unless these things are sufficiently produced within the country or are obtained by exporting goods abroad in order to import the necessary goods and commodities to maintain a high standard of living.
It seems to me that there are three categories of men and women who are concerned in production. They are the technologists, the technicians and the skilled operators. The technologists improve existing methods of production and invent new methods of production. Their researches and investigations often lead to the establishment of entirely new industries. The technicians organise and administer the inventions of the technolo-

gists, and the skilled workers carry out the actual work of production.
So far as the skilled operators are concerned, I think that no one can deny that in this country they are a very fine body, second to none in the world. We have a fair number of technicians but, in the general opinion, not a sufficient number, and nearly everyone is agreed that we have not a sufficient number of fully-trained technologists to meet the needs of expanding and productive industry.
It is rather difficult to define what is the difference between technologists and technicians. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), has defined it as being the difference between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers. I think that we may say that we expect the technologist to have a wide knowledge of pure science and, in addition, a knowledge of the technologies of a number of industries, engineering, chemical, mechanical and electrical; of ceremics; of plastics and of fuel. It is to the technologist that we owe a great number of our new industries. We owe to them the internal combustion engine, rayon, the cinema, wireless and a number of other recent inventions which have produced new industries, expanded the production of the country and maintained full employment.
The labours of the technologists are just as necessary in war-time—perhaps even more so—as in peace-time. It was the technologists in the last war who produced Pluto, Mulberry and the Fido apparatus for dispersing fog upon which an hon. Member of the Front Bench opposite grew lyrical in the debate on Civil Aviation on Monday last. One of the most remarkable things in our contemporary scene during the last decade has been the fact that production in the U.S.A. has been practically doubled. Many people attribute that to the ample provision for higher technological education in such institutes of technology as those at Massachusetts and California.
While everyone is agreed that we should have more and even better trained technologists in this country, there are diverse opinions on how this is to be done. First, the universities come along, and say, "Give us the finance, give us the building licences, give us the staff, and we will produce all the trained technologists that the nation requires." But there are


people who argue that the range of technological studies in the universities is too narrow being confined mainly to engineering, metallurgy and mineralogy. They also argue that the universities are predominantly academic in their atmosphere, and perhaps it might be a pity to destroy the academic atmosphere of a university by introducing a large number of technological students. It is also argued that the major universities already have their full numbers, and it would impair their efficiency if those numbers were materially increased. Then, of course we have the democratic purists, who say that additional finance from public sources to expand technology should be accompanied by a concomitant increase of public control over the univerities. We all know that universities object very strongly to any increase in public control,
Recently the Ministry set up an Advisory Council to report on education for industry and commerce. That Advisory Council has now issued its Report, and the main emphasis is on further assistance being given to technical colleges. They apparently look upon the technical colleges as being the main instruments to produce the technologists of the future. There are many technical colleges in this country, but they vary very much indeed. They vary in the number of students that they have, in the extent of their equipment, apparatus and building facilities; and in the instruction they give, which runs from more or less elementary part-time instruction to advanced instruction.
The more important technical colleges, such as Bradford, Manchester, and Loughborough, have as many students as an average university college. They have large staffs of very highly skilled, qualified and competent lecturers, and they not only encourage part-time elementary technical instruction, but also the higher branches of technological instruction for postgraduate courses. Their students take external university degrees. Some of the colleges are affiliated to universities, others are not. As a matter of fact, for the last year for which there are any available statistics it is shown that half the technological degrees were taken by students of technical colleges in this country.
The Report of this Advisory Council recommends that further financial assistance should be given to these technical

colleges. Of course, technical colleges, unlike universities, are under the control of the local education authority and the Ministry. A recommendation is also made that arrangements should be made for additional building over a period of years, and also that consideration should be given to better remuneration for the staff, so that technical colleges should have better equipment, better staffing and expanded buildings. It is suggested that we should take some of the major technical colleges in the country and concentrate on them to provide the higher technical education, leaving the more elementary stages in technical education to some of the other technical colleges.
The Advisory Council also realises that the technical student, who was not able to take a university degree, would like to have some award to show to his fellows and to the nation generally that he had reached a certain level of competence and knowledge in his technical studies. So the Report suggests that a Royal College of Technology should be set up, and that it should grant awards on varying levels. There should be an associateship of the Royal College at the graduate level; a membership at the post-graduate level; and a fellowship at the level of distinguished work and original contributions to technology. It also recommends that the Royal College of Technology should have a board of governors, a council and an academic board. The Royal College of Technology would not itself set the examinations for the various awards but it is proposed that it should moderate the examinations and advise upon them to the various technical colleges.
The Report of the National Advisory Council on Education has not had a very good Press, nor a very warm reception. It is said that when this board of governors, council and academic board were set up, they would be a new bureaucracy, and we all know that, owing to the eloquent and almost non-stop speeches by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the word "bureaucracy" has now come to have a pejorative connotation, and anything which seems to set up a new bureaucracy is condemned beforehand in the minds of quite a number of people.
Some people make a further proposal that we should set up technical institutions having university status and power to grant degrees such as bachelor of technology and doctor of technology, and form technological institutes of the same standard, and covering the whole range of subjects, as in Germany, Switzerland and the United States of America. It has been suggested by some people that it would do if there were two such institutes in this country for England and Wales and one in Scotland. They propose that the major technical colleges such as Bradford, Loughborough and Manchester be united to form one technical institute, and the Imperial College and the Polytechnics in London should be united to form another, while the Herriot Watts School in Scotland should form one for that country.
As a layman I am not at all competent to decide as to the respective merits of these different recommendations with regard to the future of technical education. From the point of view of immediate practicability, and of doing something which can be fairly quickly made effective, I feel rather in favour of the Report of the National Advisory Council on Education. I understand that the teachers in the technical institutes themselves are very much in favour of the implementation of that Report. I was talking yesterday to the general secretary of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes, Mr. William Evans, and he said, "If you speak tomorrow, go all out for the implementation of the Council's Report."
We must admit that there were a very distinguished array of members on that particular Council, and it took a good deal of representative evidence. At the same time, I feel rather disposed towards the setting up of technological institutes with power to grant degrees. I feel that technologists should know something of humanity as well as of technology. I have spoken to a number of men who are employed in the publicly-owned industries of this country, and, generally speaking, they believe in public ownership, but they say it is just the same old gang who are running the industries as they did in private ownership and they lack the human touch. I suppose that, in order to effect a smooth transition, we had to employ men who were running the

industries when they were privately owned to organise and administer them under public ownership. As time goes on they will be replaced by other men, and they will be replaced by technologists.
It is necessary that technologists should know something about humanity and not merely about technology. They should know something about sociology, economics, history and human relationships, so that the work both of themselves and others can be properly performed for the benefit of the country. I have a feeling that I should prefer to see technological institutes as a means of increasing technological education in this country in the future, but I also have to reflect that before we can set up these institutes we shall need special legislation which might be controversial and would require Parliamentary time to get them through. I have enumerated various suggestions and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find time to make short speeches. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education will benefit from the advice which has been given and from the speeches which have been made when he and his chief are making up their minds on this important subject.

2.33 p.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: Whether or not we agree with all or any of the statements made by the hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen (Mr. Motley), the House will be of one mind that the subject is of vital importance and will be grateful to him for raising it. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not answer his arguments point by point. There is much confused thought about the development of technological education, about the difference between technologists and technicians, and about Government policy in the matter. I shall listen with keen interest to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, because I hope that our minds will be made clear on this matter of Government policy.
No doubt the Government are aware of the urgency of the problem, but the tempo ought to be increased. I shall expect the Parliamentary Secretary to declare a short-term policy and a long-term policy. The long-term policy will involve expenditure on new buildings and


upon new and expensive equipment; yet despite its importance this development will inevitably be affected by the limitation placed on capital expenditure. That is why a short-term policy is of especial importance at this time, when the necessity of a pool or continuous supply of technologists is more imperative than it has ever been. We must make the best possible use of the existing machinery for the education and training of the technician as well as the technologist. That calls for a great measure of co-operation between the universities, the technical colleges and the colleges of technology, and with industry and research organisations.
In the short-term policy, the important thing is to get on with training people and with making the maximum use of all available resources so as to be in a position to meet the competition of the world not only in trade and industry but in the more sinister sphere of rearmament which has been made necessary by the armed strength of Russia and her satellites. There may be difficulties in getting all the elements to give this maximum of co-operation because of differing views on the long-term policy. The common ground is the urgent necessity to provide trained technologists and not to fall behind other countries in knowledge and invention.
We are all agreed that our technologists are second to none in the world: and during the war we overcame great handicaps. We must remove all handicaps now if we are to maintain our proud position. We have to remedy an obvious shortage of skilled technologists. Are we making full use of all available buildings? Though many buildings are obsolete and even sub-standard, compared with modern ideas, they have nevertheless in the past turned out men of genius. I have in mind the College of Technology in Leeds where, before the war, a scheme was in hand for new buildings. The old buildings were to be pulled down; but the war came and those buildings are still in use. The college has had to take over a nearby garage and turn it into two lecture rooms and a drawing office.
Are we making the maximum use of our equipment? Are the times of practical classes and lectures staggered in order to allow the maximum use of avail-

able equipment? Do we get all the friendly co-operation possible from industry? I am fully aware of the valuable assistance that we get from industry but is it the maximum possible? In the City of Leeds, Messrs. I. Braitwaite & Co. made a generous gift recently of pressing and processing machinery to the College of Technology. The college attempted to install this equipment but the old buildings would not take it. The college showed invention and initiative in securing other buildings and full use is now being made of that valuable equipment. Are we getting the maximum help from industry? That is the sort of help we want. Are we doing all we can to encourage them to give that help?
Are the universities encouraging all possible research? The University of Leeds sets a valuable example by the association of its fuel department with the gas industry, and in the City of Leeds we have had the benefit of the work of the late Professor J. W. Cobb and his successor. Professor F. Dent. These two professors attended the school in Leeds which you and I, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, also attended. We know something of the value, therefore, of the association between the university and industry. I feel that if we are successful in our short-term policy, we shall evolve from this our long-term policy
The problems which we have to face include the possible separation of the teaching of higher technology from the training of technicians. I know this is a controversial subject, but it is one that has to be considered. We shall have to face the provision of more accommodation and new equipment, and the securing of staff of high calibre or standard. Our universities have not sufficient places to offer for technology and eventually it might be necessary to build two new universities, one for engineering and one for textiles. It may be necessary soon to take technical colleges from the control of local education authorities and from the Ministry of Education. The Report of the National Advisory Council is not the answer to all the problems and it does not go far enough. Our first essential task is to seek universal co-operation and to give the maximum encouragement while pressing on with liberal schemes of training.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have decided views on this subject, because only 12 months ago I was lecturing in a technical college. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) spoke of the link between technical colleges and industry. In Rugby we have a fine college of technology which has been most generously equipped by the British Thomson-Houston Company and also helped by the English Electric Company. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also mentioned the imperative need for more technologists. The Percy Report says:
The position of Great Britain as a leading industrial nation is being endangered by failure to secure the fullest possible application of science to industry, and this failure is partly due to deficiencies in education.
The universities have been almost "dogs in the manager" in regard to giving technical colleges more chance to develop. There has been very haphazard development indeed in this field of education; let us do something about it in the very near future.
The university teachers tell us that the production of technicians should be the function of the technical colleges but that the production of technologists should be the function of the universities. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) told us that they say, "Give us the tools and we will expand our departments, like the University of Leeds, with eight departments of technology, including colour chemistry and the like. Let us expand these departments and we will do the job for you." This does not go down well with people like myself who have been in technical education and think that we have done a good job in the last decade or two. Technical colleges have done a fine job and can do an even better job in supplementing the fine work of the universities in their own field.
In 1948 the technical colleges had something like 9,000 full-time degree students and almost 10,000 degree students on a part-time basis. I cannot get the numbers, but there were many more in part-time evening education. There were also many others doing postgraduate work. I have been given the figures for the years 1945–49 by 31 techni-

cal colleges, and these showed that about 196 students and staff submitted original post-graduate papers and 218 higher degrees were obtained including eight B.Sc, 85 Ph.D. and 150 M.Sc.
I would say to the universities that they are doing a very fine job but that they should not wish to shut us out. They should not take away the keenest and best students and leave behind only the elementary work. We can do a good job in the technical colleges just as the universities themselves are doing a good job. If the universities could expand and double the output of technologists, so also could the technical colleges expand and double their output.
As to the attitude of many people towards technicians and technologists, it is one of the oddities of the English educational system—I say "English" and not"Scottish"—that people who have spent their university course in the classics or art, are regarded as having more culture than those who are technicians and technologists. It is regarded somehow as more cultured to know about the night haunts of Messalina on her tours of Rome than to know about the inside of a jet engine. That sort of thing ought to disappear with many of the other snobbish attitudes in our social system.
I am quite happy that the universities should expand and make progress. All I would say is that the technical colleges should also have a slice of the cake. The Minister ought to choose four or five of the better technical colleges, such as Manchester, Bradford or Birmingham, and develop the education there to first degree and post-graduate work. He would have to eliminate all the elementary work done there and the governors would have to scrap a large proportion of the present teaching staff. Without becoming too personal, I should like to quote from my former timetable. I was going from lecture to lecture, leaving external London first-class honours students and going to 15-years-old ex-modern secondary school classes taking social subjects. We must cut out the elementary staff if we are to develop the higher technological work by selected technologists. Conditions and salaries for these ought to be very much better. Technical college teachers and lecturers should have improved conditions and they would also like fewer lectures per week and some time for post-graduate work——

Mr. William Wells: I had a letter from a Cambridge don yesterday in which he complained that he and his colleagues were now having to work 60 or 70 teaching hours a week.

Mr. Johnson: That is a shocking statement. I suppose that other universities are not working quite so hard.
The hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen talked about the award which will be given by the new Royal College of Technology. I am most unhappy that it has not been suggested that a degree such as B.Sc. (Technology) should be given. It is important that technologists have a degree. I am very disturbed indeed at this hypothetical equivalent of the associateship to a university degree. I should be much happier if we "came clean" and said that we were giving degrees in technology and that we could proceed beyond that degree to post-graduate work in universities. Let the universities expand their work, and at the same time let us upgrade four or five of our major technical colleges and appoint a technological grants committee so that these colleges may have internal autonomy, and thus expand and stand alongside the universities on an equal footing. If we can have this, I am quite sure that the technical institutions will play a very big part indeed in turning out the technologists that we need so badly these post-war days of economic survival. Let us do something soon.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: In the few moments left for this question, I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), for having selected this as his subject and also the hope that there will be an opportunity before long for the House to give more than 55 minutes on the Motion for the Adjournment to a matter which is of vital interest to the future of this country. We are no longer the world's factory, as we used to be. What we have to sell is our brains, and it is the special obligation of the Minister of Education to see that all the facilities are provided for producing the type of man who is needed to enable us to keep our place in the modern highly industrialised world.
I have listened to the speeches and I have some sympathy with one or two hon. Members who attempted to define

a technologist. My own view is that it is less important to try to define the type of man we want or the label we put on him—whether it be a diploma or a degree —than to get the right type of institution with the right type of teacher. When we have those, the products of the institution will be known at their own value for what they are. I am sure that the main problem before the Minister is to provide the right institutions and teachers of unquestioned calibre, and then he can leave the rest of the problem to them to solve.
I want to make particular reference to the report of the National Advisory Council on the Future Development of Higher Technological Education. The central recommendation in this report is that there should be created a Royal Institute of Technologists. I dissent from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and to some extent, though with no great enthusiasm, by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, that this represents the way to solve our problem. As I see it, all that such a college will do is to add a further complication to an already complicated field without really producing any new, positive contribution.
After all, within the field of technology we already have the universities giving degrees and technical colleges giving diplomas; we have the National Certificates as well as those of the City and Guilds of London Institute, and the diplomas of the innumerable professional bodies over every field of technology. What a Royal Institute of Technologists will do over and above what has already been done by the existing bodies, other than create confusion, frankly, I cannot make out.
So far as I know, there is no substantial technology in existence today which has not developed of its own enthusiasm its own qualifying body, with its own professional diplomas already established and recognised. There may be a few new technologies which are in the process of developing such bodies, but in the ordinary way in a little time they will do what all the other technologies have done. I do not know of a single established technology to which the Royal College of Technologists could make any contribution. I do not know whether there are one or two in the mind of the Minister. If so, I should be interested to hear of them.
As far as I am aware, the only field within which the qualifications of a Royal Institute of Technologists might operate is within the field of the nationalised industries. Yet surely it would be extremely dangerous if Ministers responsible for the nationalised industries were to encourage those industries to prescribe for various technological appointments the standards of a new technological body in preference to the standards of the old-established technological institutions. Ultimately, there would be no advantage to the State from the creation of such new and lower qualifications.
Apart from what was said by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, and possibly by the hon. Member for Rugby, I have heard hardly one good word for the recommendations of this report by anybody who has read it. It is condemned almost universally by the professional qualifying bodies, and I only hope the Parliamentary Secretary has seen the various letters that have gone into his Ministry expressing their opinion of those recommendations.
What Great Britain needs are technologists of the highest possible qualifications, as I have said. What we have to do is to provide not fresh labels but institutions of the highest quality where these people can be trained. I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby that the old academic argument as to the place of technology in the university should, by now, have gone by the board. Given the proper teachers, we can get as broad, as generous and as liberal an education on the technological basis as from the humanities or from any of the more historic university courses.
I believe that the answer to our present need is that which the Committee itself referred to but rejected. That is the upgrading of two or three or half a dozen of our best technological colleges in such a way as to take them out of the hands of the local authorities, who are always perturbed with questions of rates and of dividing the money available between higher, secondary and primary education, and putting those few institutions in a position of autonomy similar to our great universities. Whether or not they should be detached from the Ministry of Education, I do not know.
It would be a painful process, and no doubt even an enthusiastic Minister would not find much support in the Department for such a proposal. But they must have academic freedom, they must have financial freedom, they must have on their governing bodies men of the highest quality who really understand higher education and the needs of industry. Given those necessities, I feel quite certain that half a dozen of our big technological colleges can provide the type of men we need.
I hope the Minister will refer this report back to the Committee; that he will say to his Committee that he does not see that their present recommendations do anything more than touch unrealistically the fringe of the subject, and that they should now turn their attention to the fundamental problem of producing the right institutions in which the technologists of the future are to be trained.

2.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): May I join with hon. Members who have spoken on all sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), on raising this important subject. The Report of the National Advisory Council was published last November, and was discussed in another place as recently as 1st February. We welcomed that debate and we welcome this one with equal cordiality. However, I hope my hon. Friend will not charge me with discourtesy if I tell him at the outset that I can add very little at present to what the Government spokesman in the other place said on this Report.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), spoke about increasing the speed with which a decision could be taken. In the few minutes at my disposal, I will try to show the variety of interests that have to be considered before my right hon. Friend can take a decision and make it known. He has not yet reached conclusions on the recommendations of the Report, and whatever I have to say this afternoon is governed by that fact.
It has been pointed out that comments from interested parties have come in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), has mentioned, many letters from interested bodies have arrived, not


all of them as cordial as we would wish. There have also been articles in the professional journals on this Report. Hon. Members of both Houses have made their comments in writing, in the debate in another place, and in this debate this afternoon. Discussions at an official level must take place that there may be cooperation within the Departments concerned, because, as has been shown by the speeches this afternoon, the universities are much implicated in any decision taken. The universities themselves naturally must make known their point of view as well as that of the staffs of the governing bodies of the various technical colleges, and these are all most important factors which must be taken into account before my right hon. Friend can reach a decision. It is only after considering common problems that the Minister can reach worthwhile conclusions.
We are not, of course, this afternoon concerned with the general aspects of general technical education. We are concerned with technology and I confess I have found it extremely difficult to find an adequate definition of that term. I think I know the distinction between a technician and a technologist, but I confess that I find it extremely difficult to find a watertight definition of technology and I think there is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said, that really the arrival at any such definition depends on the kind of place where technological studies occur. Technical education in general and higher technological education in particular are so important to the future commercial prosperity and safety of our country in peace and in war, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend who opened this debate, that we must see that the next step is not only the right one but is supported by all the main interests concerned. I promise the House we shall not delay a day longer than is necessary in making known our decisions on this Report, because we realise how important it is to let those engaged in higher technology particularly to know what their future is to be.
On one point I can be definite. It is a point which has been widely supported this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) made very clear the line that certain critics have taken, that all higher technological educa-

tion could be carried out in the universities and that technical colleges should have little or nothing to do with it. I emphatically reject that point of view. It is not the view of the majority of the universities; it is not the view of any well-informed critics, even those critics who have been opposed to some of the recommendations in the Report. Where it is held as a point of view, it is in my view based upon an ignorance of what in fact takes place in the best technical colleges of the country. There can, indeed, in certain quarters be a great deal of intellectual ignorance about technical education, technical education which for far too long has been the Cinderella of the educational service.
What we have to do, I suggest, is to work for developments both in universities and technical colleges, not in any competitive spirit, but to meet the needs of both and in so doing to meet the needs of the nation. Extremely valuable and varied work in advanced technology is being carried out in our technical colleges often, as the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North, rightly pointed out, under most adverse conditions. The Report itself emphasised this point. The success that has been attained already has been due, in my opinion, to a lively cooperation between teaching staffs and local authorities up and down the country, with the help of industry. There is no question that where technical education and high technological studies have advanced most there has been willing co-operation.
Moreover, the volume of degree and post-graduate work being done has increased since the war and is still increasing since the material upon which the Report was based was brought together in 1948–49. Education of the technician is one purpose of technical education. Facilities for advanced technological work is its apex and for practical purposes I suggest that this means concentrating more and more of this advanced work in selected colleges, which was a point made by the opener of this debate. The link with industry must not only be maintained, it must be strengthened. This entails a concentration of advanced work spread over all the major industrial areas.
It seems to me that to talk of two or three upgraded colleges is no solution to the main problem. Again, giving a few


colleges a quasi-university status by excluding more elementary work does not give a technical college university standards, and I think the universities are rightly opposed—in fact they are inflexibly so—to any attempts to establish degree-awarding bodies which do not have the full characteristics of the universities. I am convinced that advanced technological work should be carried out in technical colleges and I am prepared to help them to do their job as well as they can in their own right, and not as imitations of something else.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two other points in the Report, upon which I think comment will be of interest. To carry on and to provide for developments, technical colleges must have better finance and better staffing. They must have better equipment, they must have better accommodation. In regard to better staffing, on which there has been the Report of the Burnham Committee on Salaries to be paid to those who work in technical colleges, the plea for better remuneration was made by the opener of this debate. The value of the new scales as they affect technical work is that they do allow for greater flexibility than did the old scales, so that it is possible to pay appropriate salaries in colleges where advanced technological work is undertaken. This is clear evidence of the value local education authorities are placing on advanced work, and I have every confidence that they will make good use of the freedom the new scales allow.
Not only must improvements in staffing be made—higher salaries with better equipment and better accommodation— but there must be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby so rightly emphasised, academic freedom to allow courses to be planned with the maximum adaptability to new conditions and techniques. It will not suffice to determine courses by rigid outside requirements such as external university degrees. Working only for university degrees can be a very limiting factor indeed, particularly in this field of

higher technology. It is in the main to remedy these defects that the Report has put forward these recommendations. It is accepted as a sound and valuable analysis of things requiring attention if higher technological work is to develop as it should in our technical colleges. Any decision which my right hon. Friend takes is bound to displease somebody, but all comment and criticism is being most carefully considered and today's debate will help still further.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, said, it is only right that in replying to this debate I should pay regard to the fact that the Report has received a great deal of cordial support. My hon. Friend referred to the distinguished people who have served on the Advisory Committee. I am not prepared to go the whole way with him when he suggests that there has been so much criticism. In fact, there has been a great deal of cordial support for the recommendations. In their essentials they have been endorsed, as I have already said, by most of the universities. They have been endorsed by the local education authorities. They have been endorsed and supported by spokesmen of most of the teachers in the technical colleges, and they have been supported by many distinguished representatives of many varied and important industries. Such support strengthens my view that developments must be based upon existing foundations, a point which was made particularly by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). Existing traditions are things on to which we must hold and on which we must build. We must build also upon the undoubted achievements of technical education in this country, and at the same time seize every opportunity to remedy defects and to remove handicaps.
It is in that spirit that my right hon. Friend and I approach the recommendations of the Report. To us there is no field in education, whether it is the university or the education of the child, that is more vital to our future well-being than education at the higher technological level.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT)

3.11 p.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister of Transport is having rather a field day today, but I make no apology to the House for getting him here this afternoon to discuss some-of the problems of transport in the Highlands and Islands, because the Government agree with us in their White Paper on Highland Development, when in paragraph 22 of this report they say:
It has long been recognised that transport is the crucial problem of the Highlands.
The matter which I am raising is not parochial in any sense. The seven crofter counties of the Highlands constitute 14,000 square miles and are one-fifth of the land area of Great Britain. But the Highlands transport problem is even bigger, and affects very much more than half of Scotland. We shall not have economic transport until we can get re-population in the Highlands, and I am hoping that in time that may be possible. What we can get today, however, is a vision of the possibility for the future, and I say unhesitatingly that the Highlands are the one area in Great Britain where we can get a greater increase in food production than in any other part of the British Isles. Moreover, the Highlands are important from the strategic viewpoint in the maintenance of bases, and are also important for the earning of foreign currency through the tourist industry.
Transport in the Highlands is very different from the rest of Britain and requires a different approach. It requires more the type of approach that is applied to a colonial country with great area and sparse population and is, therefore, totally different from the approach of, for example, London Transport with its congested traffic and comparatively short distances. The Highlands need special consideration, and the Foreign Secretary said as much on his visit last summer. I cannot help contrasting his announcement on that occasion, when he said we could have £750,000 for road construction, with his rather sad announcement the other day of the miscalculation by £1¼ million on the Festival of Britain site.
The road grant which the right hon. Gentleman gave us could cover only little more than 100 miles of road in the Highlands, but in my constituency alone—most

of the examples I give are from my constituency, whose problems are of the same type as are met with in all the crofter counties—there are still 165 miles of road waiting for attention under the crofter counties scheme. In Inverness-shire, for instance, there are 1,668 miles of road altogether. Of these, 228 miles are trunk roads, which are already looked after by the Minister of Transport, but the remaining 1,440 miles are classified and unclassified roads. The truth of the matter is that repairs and reconstruction of these roads for quite a long time have not kept pace with deterioration, and the question of roads is probably the most important consideration in island transport.
There are certain factors why reconstruction has not kept pace with deterioration. First, 50 per cent. of the classified and unclassified roads in Inverness-shire are gravel carriageways, which are subject to deterioration from weather conditions more than any other type of road. There has been a delay in expenditure during the war years and a delay in anticipation of reconstruction. Not enough has been done, therefore, in road maintenance for the past 15 years.
Furthermore, a quite considerable upsurge of life in the Highlands is taking place despite these difficulties, and this is shown in certain ways. For instance, over a certain area in Inverness-shire it is found that the bus mileage which, in 1938, was one million reached, last year, the figure of 6½ million. We should not be far wrong in reckoning that the bus mileage has gone up to something like 6½ times what it was at pre-war. There has, therefore, been a greatly increased bus traffic, and buses have increased in size. Lorries also have increased in size and now the five-ton lorry is the general rule.
The number of private cars also has increased. There are now 50 per cent. more—a far greater increase than in any other part of the country—than before the war. We also have the scheme for transporting children to school. The mileage covered in this way in Inverness-shire alone is 35,000. There are 150 vehicles in use, and the cost of transport to school worked out at £25 per child per annum. This represents a considerable additional use of the roads.
I do not think that the Ministry of Transport altogether understand the problem of the maintenance of roads in the Highland counties. I cannot quite understand, for instance, why they did not grant the full amount asked for this year by the county authorities in Inverness-shire for the maintenance and repair of classified roads. We know that a percentage grant is made for Class I, II and III, roads, the figures for which were very carefully worked out by the county authorities. That would have entailed granting what would have amounted to an expenditure of £117,200 by His Majesty's Government which would have enabled the county authorities, who had carefully worked out their requirements, to give from their rates the remaining proportion and would have obtained what they estimated to be the maximum effort on the roads. For some reason or other the Ministry of Transport said, "There you are; you have £75,000, get on with that." That simply means that they have not been able to make the best use of the finance and resources available.
I could sum up the question of roads in this way: taking the problem as I know it exists in Inverness, and as I know it exists in the other crofter counties, the country has, in order to get the roads there in a decent condition, to face, sooner or later, an expenditure of £20 to £25 million at the present purchasing power of the pound. Any failure to do this in the near future will only mean that we shall have to spend more later.
I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about ferries, especially the ferry across to Skye. I believe that he is willing to make the ferries part of the high road. I hope that he will also consider the question of making a trunk road through Skye from the south end to the north end of the island. That would also be very convenient because it would provide the shortest and quickest route to the outer islands. If we could get a trunk road through to Dunvegan a steamer service to the outer islands would be very convenient.
I pass to the question of transport rates. The Minister told us today that he is seeking the advice of the Transport Tribunal for a flat rate increase throughout the country of 10 per cent. I would like

to know what is to be the procedure in his seeking this advice. Are interested parties to be consulted? For example, will the Scottish Consultative Committee be consulted on this matter? Are the recommendations of the Cameron Report to be taken into consideration?
I received a specific promise from the Prime Minister last June, when I drew his attention to the burden of freight rates in the Highlands, that in the case of the draft charges scheme which was to be submitted to the Transport Tribunal, there would be full opportunity to make representations to the tribunal at a public inquiry on behalf of users in remote areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping that consideration in mind because in the Highlands we are already seeing signs that the law of diminishing returns is beginning to show itself. Our case in the Highlands, even before the rise of 16$ per cent, last year, was for a reduction, for special consideration, in the matter of fares. Only today I received a letter from a baker in Inverness who has been written to by a client in Sutherland, who says that he is closing his account. His reasons were simply that the heavy carriage charges were crippling him.
I wish to give one or two examples of the way in which high freight rates are hurting industry in the Highlands. It might emphasise the point if I state that the increase of 16⅔ per cent. last year meant an increase in the building trade in Inverness of 12s. 1d. per thousand bricks, or approximately £12 per house, that is, it added £12 to a cost of a house. In Beauly, which is further on, it added £15 to a cost of a house. I have here many other examples which I could give, but I have not the time to do so. I will, however, send them to the right hon. Gentleman if he is interested in seeing them.
I give one example. We have in Inverness a welding industry called Resistance Welders Limited. They are very fine engineers and build the fastest welding machine in the world. They have great difficulties because of the cost of steel. Steel which, in Glasgow, costs nothing in respect of freight charges, costs 15s. a ton—or did before last year's increase—in Aberdeen and 35s. 6d. per ton in Inverness for freight charges. Following the increase last year the figure


has now risen to 41s. per ton in Inverness. That is an example of how freight charges are crippling industry.
There is another example. In the north of Scotland we pride ourselves on our specialised agriculture. In the Black Isle a good many seed potatoes are produced. Farmers in the south wish to have seed potatoes clear of disease, but the freight charges on the carriage of their seed potatoes is crippling the trade to the extent that many of those farmers are refusing to buy any more.
Yet another example is provided in the case of the tourist trade. At this time of year a lot of people who have the time available are thinking of going to winter sports. We can offer certain winter sports in Scotland. There should never be any doubt in anyone's mind, if thinking of cost, whether they should go to Switzerland or Scotland. As passenger rates are, it is little more expensive to go to Switzerland than to go to the Cairngorms. We want to attract all the tourists we can for the good of the country, and I submit that the best thing the Minister can do is to cut fares by half during the winter, spring and autumn months, and he will then find that he will get a better return than he gets at present.
Now I want to say a word or two about sea transport. I recognise the difficulty here. Many types of transport in the Highlands are really lifelines; they are lines which are uneconomic at present, and will remain so until we get proper re-population, but they are essential to keep life going. It is rather like that with steamer lines. Macbraynes get a subsidy of about £240,000 a year, and the demand made on them all the time is, of course, for greater speed, greater frequency and reduced costs. At the same time, the shipping company has to face steadily rising operating costs, piers and harbours are deteriorating, and consignments of traffic, especially from the Islands, are small. Now those two things must be reconciled, and I suggest that to get the development we want in the Highlands we must try to marry the service to the adequate and efficient rather than to the economic. Then, in course of time, we shall get a return.
Meantime, I think we can avoid certain examples of inefficiency, two of which I should like to quote to the right hon. Gentleman. For instance, a steamer

which comes from the outer Isles arrived on a Saturday at Malaig. It is scheduled to arrive at 2.15, but the train away from Malaig leaves at two o'clock so that those arriving in the steamer have not a hope of getting away from Malaig till Monday morning.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Integration of inland transport!

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, it is a question of integration. One passenger who was stranded at Malaig over the week-end wrote to the British Railways, and the answer he got from the Railway Executive was simply this:
The steamer to which you refer is not booked to connect with the 2 p.m. from Malaig, no doubt as there is very little traffic
That is the sort of thing which will result in even less traffic.
Another example I should like to give of the kind of circumstance which really can be avoided is this: the managing director of the Auto and General Electrical Services, Millburn Road, Inverness, brought it to my notice. The driver of a motor van was instructed by Messrs. Macbraynes' agent in Stornoway to be on the pier there at 9.30 p.m. on the 10th of this month. He arrived there with the van at 8,20 p.m., reported to the shipping office and arranged for his lorry to be shipped on to the boat to Kyle.
He left the van on the pier and waited the arrival of the steamer. The steamer was late and did not get in until 10.10 p.m. The vehicles were the last goods to be loaded, and at 10.30 p.m. the dock foreman instructed the driver to bring the van to the loading point, which he did and was then ready to drive on to the slings. At 11 p.m. all the dockers left except the foreman, who then informed the driver that he could not be loaded until Monday. This was Saturday. On Sunday, of course, nothing very much happens at Stornoway. So he was stranded that week-end. I would point out that five minutes would have sufficed to have loaded that vehicle on to the ship, and the delay in getting the van away from Stornoway till Monday caused the firm to upset all its schedule of deliveries to Skye for Monday. That type of thing is, I think, entirely unnecessary.
In Norway, where they have a similar but very much longer coastline to the West Highlands, they do the bulk of their travel


by sea. I believe that by increasing the number of piers and examining the services to see that they really do the best they can to supply the needs of the population we would get a good deal of progress.
I spoke the other day about air services, so I will not say very much about them today, except that I regard the establishment of a flying boat service, on the West Coast particularly, as another life-line which would make a colossal difference to life in the Highlands. I hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to that in the near future.
I have here a rather interesting book written by a Mr. James Cameron, who is a Radical, judging by most of his books, with a strong dislike of Tories and landlords in particular. Nevertheless, he is a fair-minded man, and I should like to quote from the book which he wrote in 1912. It is about the Highlands and describes, among other matters, the difficulties of travel there. He speaks about the Highland Railway and the wonderful benefit it was for the whole of the Highlands. He says:
So late as the 'sixties … it took close upon a week to make the journey from the island of Skye to Edinburgh, when today one can at a reasonable hour breakfast comfortably in Portree, the capital town of the island, and have supper in the Scottish metropolis before the licensed houses have closed their doors.
If one is looking at it in that way, I would point out that if we had an air service it would be possible to breakfast comfortably in Portree and arrive in the metropolis before the licensed houses had opened their doors in the morning; but, to all intents and purposes, we are still in exactly the same state as regards transport in the Isle of Skye as we were in 1912. He also tells how the Highland Railway was started. He says:
There is no class of capitalist during the last 30 years who has been more fiercely assailed than the landed proprietor.
He also says:
… yet the Highland laird can never be shorn of the credit that from his class there sprung the men who supplied the funds, and laid deep and broad the foundations of the greatest commercial and industrial undertaking ever known in the North.
The building of the Highland Railway was one of the finest engineering feats in Britain, and Mr. Cameron quotes the

various people who helped in the initial stages. They included the Duke of Sutherland, the Earl of Seafield, Sir Alexander Matheson, Mr. Merry, of Belladrum, Lords Albot and Ronald-Leverson and Gower, the Earl of Fyfe, Mr. Aenas Mackintosh, of Raigmore, and Lord Tweedmouth. He says:
The most striking thing, perhaps, in the almost 60 years' existence of the Highland Railway Company is that those who have been controlling the railway never for a moment lost faith in the potentialities of the Highlands and Hebrides as having within them inherent powers of industrial and agricultural growth.
To all intents and purposes, the Minister of Transport controls the railways today. I sincerely trust that he is able to maintain that faith. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), speaking in the recent Civil Aviation debate, used a phrase which caught my fancy. Often Scotland and the Scottish air services have been known as the Cinderella of the British European Airways Corporation. He said that they ought to regard the Highlands not as a Cinderella, but as a sleeping beauty. That is an exceedingly good way of looking at the matter, and I believe it is true that this sleeping beauty could be awakened, not by a kiss from a prince, but by wise action which the right hon. Gentleman could initiate.

3.35 p.m.

Major McCallum: I should like to congratulate my noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), on having been fortunate enough to be able to initiate this short debate and on having raised this most interesting problem of the transport difficulties in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The former Lord President of the Council admitted in Inverness last year, that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland presented a very special problem in the development difficulties of this country. I am quite certain that the Secretary of State for Scotland also feels that way. In fact, only two or three weeks ago, at the invitation of the Secretary of State, I, as a member of the transport group of the Highland Panel, went to Stornoway to attend an economic conference on, amongst other things, the subject of transport difficulties in the Highlands.
It was rather significant that the Secretary of State did not care to face the music himself, but he did ask the Highland Panel to go for him, and we did. What was the main gist of the argument at that conference? It was, indeed, the same thing as my noble Friend the Member for Inverness has pointed out—transport difficulties, the resuscitation of life and even the prevention of the development of further unemployment in the Highlands today. The members of that conference, the people of the island of Lewis and the burgh of Stornoway, asked that the Government should realise that transport is the key to all these matters in Highland life.
I quite admit that the Government themselves realise that fact, and I am sure that the Minister of Transport does; in fact, he has told us so on several occasions. What are they going to do about it? While I admit this is very difficult, I suggest that there is one method, to which my noble Friend has referred. It is that, until the populations and traffics of the Highlands become sufficiently numerous and heavy to give an economic return, whether it is a matter of steamers, railways or air, the more populous parts of the country and the industry of the country must carry the more sparsely populated areas. That is no new thing. It is done already by the Post Office and by the Hydro-Electricity Board. Development has been carried on by the Hydro-Electricity Board in carrying supplies to many sparsely populated and remote areas, the Board knowing full well that the losses incurred on these developments would be recouped by larger developments elsewhere.
There is also the Report drawn up by Sheriff John Cameron on the question of freight rates in the Highlands. I recently asked the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary when that Report would be published. I understand that it is not yet published, and therefore, although I know its contents. I do not feel entitled to refer to it. There are. I believe, one or two solutions put forward in that Report, and I wonder whether the Minister of Transport, in his reply, will be able to make some reference to it. It is a difficult problem, and nobody would pretend that it will be easy to overcome.
I want to make one other point in regard to agriculture. In these days of

the small meat ration and so on, everyone in this country, and particularly the Government, is looking to the Highlands of Scotland to produce more beef and mutton, and farmers in that part of the country are doing and will do their very utmost. But, here again, they are in difficulties with this question of freight rates and transport costs.
It is perfectly true that certain hon. Members opposite refer to the farmers of Great Britain as being "feather-bedded," but I would point out that the farmers of the Highlands of Scotland—the hill farmers—are not by any manner of means "feather-bedded." They do not benefit by the guaranteed prices fixed in consultation with the National Farmers' Union. They do not benefit by even the same freight rates, but have to pay even higher freight rates in their endeavours to carry on their agriculture because they are farther away from markets. Would it not be possible for the Minister of Transport to make some recommendations to the Chairman of the Transport Commission to see if he, also, cannot make a special concession for the Highlands and Islands in regard to railway and whatever other transport means he controls?
I also ask the Minister of Transport and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation to make every endeavour to treat the Highlands and Islands as a special area. When I look at a Report issued the other day on the development of the use of the helicopter in this country, I feel very doubtful whether we shall get such special treatment. I know it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport but of his right hon. Friend, but if there is one way in which the transport difficulties of this area could be overcome, it is by the development of the helicopter. How much reference to the helicopter is contained in this Report? On page 11, there are five words,
the uneconomic Western Isles service.
That is all the reference that Report makes to the matter. In other words, the Committee which went into this thing has not made an objective study of how helicopter development could assist the transport system of the Highlands and Islands.
In conclusion. I wish to reinforce what was said by my noble Friend just now, by quoting one or two differences in prices with which farmers—and I am now


talking more especially of the farmers of the Highlands and Islands, and particularly of those of the Island of Islay, which is one of the nearest islands to Glasgow—have to contend at the present time. I will give a few examples of freight charges for agricultural produce in 1944—towards the end of the war— and those of today. Artificial manures have gone up from 13s. 6d. per ton in 1944 to 26s. 3d. a ton today, and if the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman means that there is to be a further 10 per cent. increase, that will be another blow to these farmers. Basic slag has gone up from 12s. to 24s. 1d. a ton, and feeding cake from 17s. 3d. to 33s. a ton. In nearly every case there has been a rise of, roughly, 100 per cent. between 1944 and 1950, although we know that the farmers cannot expect to get a similar increased return for their produce.
Again, the freight rates charged for whisky carried on the cargo boats—not passenger steamers or mail boats—have risen by nearly 100 per cent. For instance, in 1944 the rate was 2¼d. a gallon, whereas today it is 4d. a gallon. That is how prices have risen in those areas. In the case of livestock, sheep which used to be charged in 1944 at 1s. 9d. each, are today charged at 2s. 4d. each.
These are the things with which the population of the islands are contending today. We maintain that, in view of the remote area and the difficulties of transport, some special consideration should be given to our constituents in the Highlands, and that things should be made easier for them, instead of, as at the moment, being made more difficult for them than for the ordinary agricultural population in the rest of the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the difficulties of the transport system there, and will be able to help us in this matter.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: I shall make my remarks as brief as possible, but I hope that at some date we shall have an opportunity to discuss Highland problems as a whole. I fully realise that today we are dealing with only one aspect of those problems, and that is the question of the transport

difficulties. I shall try to reduce that to one point only.
I want to support the remarks which have been already made by my noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton). We shall always find tremendous transport difficulties throughout the Highlands until the road system and the method of financing that system is completely reviewed by the Minister of Transport. The point I want to emphasise here is that the Minister of Transport should be able to make grants towards the reconstruction and repair of roads of all classes that are in public use. Many of the roads, as my noble Friend said, throughout the Highlands—roads of all classes—are gravel surface roads. It is impossible for the county councils, unless they get increased grants, to solve the problem. It is impossible for them to solve the problem until they can tar all those roads, and they find it more and more difficult each year even to tar the roads.
We have this one most unsatisfactory question of parish roads. Many Highland parishes have a considerable mileage of these roads which are not eligible for grants of any kind. Surely those roads are just as much means of transport to the local inhabitants as the main roads? They should get better treatment than this. At the present, the only way to get a grant for these roads is for the county council to agree to take them over. But here is the rub. They cannot take these roads over at all until they are brought up to a suitable standard to enable the county to include them amongst the highways. How can they do this? At present it is only a proportion of the shilling rate which can be levied by the district council to raise the finance to do this. Anyway, why should we make it a condition that these roads should be brought up to this standard before they are taken over by the county council?
That, really, is the one point that I wanted to make. I think all these roads should be eligible for grants, and until they are eligible we shall not solve this problem at all. What are we finding at this moment in the Highlands? Today bus services are being cancelled—in an area where there is no other method of transport whatsoever; and in some places there is no bus service at all because the inhabitants have not got any road at all on which to travel.
I hope that we shall have a further opportunity of debating this very vexed problem. There is involved here a strategic problem which needs very full discussion on the Floor of this House. In the meantime what I am worried about more than anything else is to see how in the world we can give those people in the Highlands, who have no roads at all, the roads which they so much desire, and which it is of national importance that they should have.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I shall ask only one question of the Minister of Transport, because I think he is already aware of the difficulties in my constituency as he is of those in most other Highland constituencies. That question relates to sea freights. The services which run on the sea are, in the Orkneys and Shetlands, as it were, our road transport. The right hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, does not take responsibility for any trunk routes in our county. We feel that he ought to take it and also find means of considering our sea services as a main route, in much the way as they are in the Western Isles. There, they get some help, they get very considerable help. We do not want to ask for help for ourselves, but we are bound to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider giving us some help of the kind given to the Western Isles—some help for the shipping companies in the North of Scotland to bring down the freights in the Orkneys and Shetlands?

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): May I say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that I have not had to face the problem of any financial assistance to the Orkneys and Shetlands—for which I am very thankful— and therefore I can only undertake to look at the problem which he has raised to see exactly what are the commitments involved.
The question of rail freight increases has featured in this debate, and the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) asked me to comment on what would be the procedure. I would emphasise that, so far, the British Transport Commission have not been in a position to submit to the Tribunal their complete freight charges scheme. Everyone connected with this problem recognises

that it is a very formidable one. The British Transport Commission requested me some time ago to give them an extension of time, and I have now been informed—and this was implied in the statement which I made earlier today—that they expect to have their charges scheme ready for the Transport Tribunal by August of this year.
It is under that kind of procedure that these problems must be fought out between the British Transport Commission, as the body charged with the responsibility for providing the services, and the traders and users of the services. The organisations which represent them will have full and ample opportunity of submitting their case to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is, of course, a learned and expert body which will be able to obtain all the financial and other information they require from the Commission, and will hear the case of the traders and the interests throughout the country. So far as I know, the Highlands are equipped with various bodies to put their case clearly before the Tribunal. Therefore, it appears to me that this procedure is eminently fitted, possibly more than ever before in our history, to deal with these problems.

Major McCallum: Would a body like the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel be able to put their views to the Tribunal?

Mr. Barnes: The Tribunal itself decides its procedure and who it admits to give evidence, but from our experience so far—if I may express a personal opinion and one in no way binding the Tribunal— I should not think that there would be much doubt about that. In any case, they are very anxious to get all the information from bodies who know the problem and who can submit the necessary evidence. It is quite clear that the Minister himself is not, and never can be, in a position to judge these problems as adequately as can be done under this procedure.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Does that apply to the flat rate increase of 10 per cent.?

Mr. Barnes: I dealt with that point this morning, and I do not intend to be drawn into a controversy of that kind. I think that if the answer which I gave this morning is examined carefully in the


OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman will see that a reply has been given to that question.
Time is very limited to deal with this important matter of traffic in the Highlands, and I have made my statement about the Tribunal procedure because, in my view, it gives an adequate opportunity, and one much more thorough than I have ever experienced before, for the examination of these problems. I do not think the general rise in prices bears more heavily on one part of the country than on another, but the isolated aspect of this district is in this case an important factor.
In various ways, the Ministry of Transport have given very substantial financial assistance to transport in the Highlands, more so than to any other part of the United Kingdom. If we take the MacBrayne firm, in 1948–49 the amount of subsidy given was £204,000; in 1949–50 it was £277,027; and in 1950–51 £269,271. That represents very substantial assistance. Until this year, when it was liquidated, the Railway Freights Rebate Fund gave considerable assistance to transport. In 1948–49, £169,000 in round figures was given; in 1949 it was £235,000; and in 1950–51 it was £227,000.
The Crofter County Scheme, which was planned before the war, was designed to open up road facilities throughout the whole of the Islands. About half of that scheme of 1,200 miles of road has been completed. The original estimate was £4½ million. There is work proceeding on 31 miles now, which will cost £336,000, and further work is contemplated that will cost £486,000. Then there is the £750,000 referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness; that is an extra grant in addition to the figures I have already quoted.
On the Highland roads generally, the sum of £2½ million was spent on maintenance, and £1½million towards that £2½million came from the Road Fund. Since 1945, £1¼ millions have been spent in addition on the maintenance and improvement of trunk roads, and the Ministry of Transport, in taking over certain through-roads in the Highlands, stretched very substantially the standard of measurement of what is a trunk road. Many roads have been taken over and

improved that normally would not be classified to the standard of a trunk road, and that was in order to meet the problem which we have been discussing here.
Owing to the timetable today, I cannot go further into many of the points that have been raised, but I will undertake that they will all be passed to different departments in my Ministry for consideration.

ATOMIC ENERGY (ANGLO- AMERICAN ARRANGEMENTS)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate will accept it from me that I mean nothing personal as regards himself when I say that the subject of the whole relationship, since 1945, between ourselves and the United States is a very sad and sorry one in respect of this vitally important matter of atomic energy.
To get this subject into its proper perspective we must remember that the main share in the basic work of nuclear fission has been a British share. Almost all the fundamental research was done by people who studied under Rutherford-Chadwick, Cockcroft, Walton and others—and their work was absolutely crucial for the whole development. Without going into the whole of the reports—and the Smyth Report and the White Paper are perfectly explicit upon the whole matter—I can say that it is clear that until 1941, although there was some important exchange of information between America and ourselves on the subject, we went forward with our atomic energy project and that, at the same time, America went forward with her atomic energy project.
Eventually, the decision was taken that we should pool the whole of our resources in relation to atomic energy. That decision was taken by the war-time Coalition Government. The effect of it was a plan whereby America would obtain the benefit of all our scientific resources. It was a plan to enable them to make, in America, the vast factories or furnaces for the production of atomic energy and, after that, the development of the bomb. That plan succeeded, but the effect of it was that we handed over to America a great national asset for the period of the war.
I shall not go back into all those matters in respect of which I got into a great deal of trouble in 1945, but I did give, on 30th October, 1945, certain details which had come to my knowledge on the subject of the agreement which was reached at Quebec between the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and President Roosevelt, and which was entered into in September, 1943.
As a result of a speech which I made in 1945, the right hon. Member for Woodford made a speech, from which I should like to read a few words. He first referred to the speech which I had made and which, he said—I am reading his words—
was immediately telegraphed to the United States and at the Press Conference the next day President Truman was questioned about it. A truncated report appeared in some of the newspapers … I have taken pains to verify the actual text of the answers which President Truman gave at his Press Conference on 31st October.
The right hon. Gentleman then quoted some of the questions and answers. The really vital sentence in what President Truman was reported to have said, was as follows:
As nearly as I can find out, on the atom energy release programme, Great Britain. Canada and the United States are in equal partnership on its development, and Mr. Attlee is coming over here to discuss that phase of the situation with the President of the United States.
The right hon. Gentleman commented:
It seems to me that that is a satisfactory statement of the whole position, and it affords an exceedingly good basis upon which the Prime Minister may begin any discussion he may wish to have with the President."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 1298–1299.]
It is also clear that under the terms of the agreement or understanding which was reached during the war, this country has a right to be consulted over the use of atomic bombs, because we are in equal partnership with the United States and Canada over the whole atomic energy programme — I am using President Truman's own words—which must clearly include decisions as to the use of the atomic bomb.
I recently wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him for an assurance that that relationship of equal partnership, which was admitted by President Truman in the passage to which I have referred,

is still valid and subsisting today, but the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer that question. I am not for one moment trying to cause any difficulties whatever between the Americans and ourselves in this matter, but there are limits. It appears to me, upon the face of it, that the right which was acknowledged by President Truman in 1945 is no longer valid and subsisting.
I wish to refer to two statements. There was the statement by President Truman which partly led to the visit of the Prime Minister to the United States, and there was a recently reported statement by General Eisenhower. In neither case has it been made plain by the United States that we are in equal partnership with them over this matter, and that we have to be consulted and have a right to be consulted. It is perfectly clear—it has been admitted—that when the original decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was taken, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was consulted by President Truman, which was a recognition of our right. Surely we ought to be in exactly the same position today. Surely we have not sunk to the position of a secondary Power, to be treated as just another member of the United Nations.
When asked about this, the Prime Minister said that he thought the United Nations ought to be consulted. But, independently of the United Nations, under that agreement this country had a right to be consulted. Has that right been lost or not? I now speak as an independent Member, and I am of the opinion that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford had remained Prime Minister since 1945, that right would be valid and subsisting today.
In any event, this country has become the aircraft carrier of the Western world. By our agreement with the United States, we have on our shores American aircraft which, to the knowledge of everybody, are capable of carrying atomic bombs into the heart of the Soviet Union. The contribution which this country and the British Commonwealth and Empire have made and are making to the defence of the free world is second to the contribution of no other country in the world, and I say that both by our war-time right and by our present contribution to Western defence, we have the right still to be treated as equal partners by the United


States of America over the whole matter; not merely on the ground of agreement but also on the ground of our contribution to the defence of Western Europe——

Mr. Harold Davies: And the hazards.

Mr. Blackburn: —and the hazards which the people of this country necessarily may have to undergo and the sacrifices which we are willing to make in the common cause. The people of this country will be the first targets in the event of the war which we all hope we shall be able to avoid. That is the sacrifice which we have been willing to make, and it appears to me that our relationship of equal partnership should be fully recognised.
But the matter is far worse even than that. The more one goes into it the worse it becomes. We have had no military or scientific observers at any atomic explosions conducted by the Americans since 1947. The atomic bomb is the supreme weapon in modern war. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it was the exclusive possession of the atomic bomb during the years 1945–50 which deterred the Soviet Union from aggression. That may or may not be so, but everybody will agree that exclusive possession of the atomic bomb was a profoundly important factor and that it is a supreme weapon in war.
How idiotic and absurd it is to found our Western defence upon an alleged full partnership between the free nations of the West and yet not to allow our military and scientific observers full access to information about the most important weapon in modern war. From the purely military point of view, it is utterly and completely indefensible. From the moral point of view it is equally indefensible, because we gave all that we had to the United States during the war to enable them to proceed with the atomic energy project.
From the point of view of deterring the Soviet Union, I say, once again, that it is equally absurd. Indeed, the present failure of the United States in this and other matters—such as the appointment of the Supreme Naval Commander of the Atlantic—to treat us as equal partners, is, in my view, wonderful Communist propaganda. The Communists are saying

that the Americans seek to dominate the Western democracies and to make us play second fiddle to them. That is the Communist case.
Surely the great people and the great leaders of the United States—and I have the greatest possible respect, as have most people in this country, for President Truman—will be more generous and will realise that it is in their interests as well as in ours that we should be treated as equal partners. I wish to be absolutely fair on this. The main trouble lies with legislation passed by the Congress of the United States in 1947. This legislation, to some extent, fetters the hand of the President. It even prevents economic and commercial co-operation between this country and the U.S.A. There is a ban upon the export of important products and by-products of atomic energy from the United States, even where security considerations do not arise.
The reason for this 1947 ban was that we had some unfortunate cases of people, such as Professor Allen May who undoubtedly gave atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, and it was felt by some people in America that this country was perhaps not as reliable as the United States. With the greatest good will to the Americans, I am bound to say that anyone who seriously studies this matter knows that Communist spies in the United States have numbered 10 for every one Communist spy in this country. Anybody who takes the slightest trouble to read the case of Alger Hiss, to read about Dexter White, Wadleigh, Whittaker, Chambers, and the rest, must realise that the extent of Communist espionage in the United States was far greater than it ever was in this country. The very man whom President Roosevelt called in at Yalta to be the legal adviser in relation to the Polish settlement and to negotiate with Stalin, was a man who, according to the evidence, was a secret member of the Communist Party at the time.
I feel sure, knowing the generous hearts of the Americans, that they must realise that this 1947 legislation is utterly unfair to us. Having spent a month in the United States discussing this matter with American scientists, having discussed it with many Americans of distinction, I have yet to come across an American who does not think this is unfair to the people of Britain. After all we have done, it is both unfair and contrary to morality. It


is contrary to the agreement. It is contrary to common sense. Therefore, I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman, while I appreciate that he cannot say much in public, will see that this matter is raised at the earliest possible opportunity at the highest level.
One final general point. It is perhaps the main trouble of the peoples of the Western world that we do not believe sufficiently in ourselves, whereas the Communists certainly believe in themselves. The trouble with us, in many cases, is that we do not stand up sufficiently for ourselves throughout the world. The British Commonwealth and Empire today still remains the only Power which has interests and communications all over the world. We would be utterly unjustified in accepting a position of secondary importance to the United States of America, whose people are our natural cousins, our natural Allies, and the other section of the English-speaking people. It must be a relationship of equal partnership on this matter such as was recognised by President Truman himself.
I ask the Government to take immediate steps to see that our right to the fullest consultation over the use of the atomic bomb and over the development of atomic energy is recognised by the United States, and that we obtain immediately the fullest information on all economic and scientific subjects so that we may be equal partners in defence.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) for hurrying through his speech on this most important matter, especially as he knew I was going to take my right to extend the scope of the discussion to the broader issue of international control. The only possible criticism I have to make of the hon. Member's speech is that to discuss the matter on the somewhat narrow limit of our relationship with the United States might make it appear as though we considered it inevitable that we could never secure agreement with the Soviet.
One can only discuss the matter of atomic energy and production and control in the context of general disarmament Indeed, if I may quote the remarks of Mr. Representative Vorys, he said that if Russia were to agree to the outlawry of the atomic bomb, the Americans would

be giving up the only possible weapon they have against mass armies and mass conscription. The weaknesses of the original Baruch plan are, indeed, weaknesses of the United Nations Charter, for if any country were attacked by means of the atomic bomb, it would, in fact, be annihilated to the point where the procedure for collective action under the existing United Nations Charter would be far too late.
The three fundamental weaknesses of the Baruch plan were, in my view, these: First, the international inspection of atomic plants, if challenged by any individual nation, would be the signal for war by the so-called conventional weapons. Secondly, it is impossible to secure a strategic balance of atomic plants. One has only to consider the alignment of the Commonwealth and America against, possibly, Russia to realise that we cannot have a strategic balance of three equal parts in that context. Thirdly, the industrial and technical capacity of any individual nation will govern the speed at which plant for the production of atomic energy can be converted to plant capable of producing atomic bombs.
In this whole matter we must consider that the existing United Nations Charter, controlling an assembly of individual sovereign States, cannot possibly be father to any plan for the international control of atomic energy and atomic bomb production. I should like to quote this significant extract from a letter from Bernard Baruch to Mr. Representative Vorys, which seems to me to indicate that even when he was producing his plan he did not really have much faith in it. In a letter of 2nd August, 1946, he wrote:
Just outlawing the atomic bomb will not get us anywhere. Too many people were killed in the war without the atomic bomb. We must outlaw war itself, and that can be done by placing in the constitution of each country the pledge that it will not go to war.
Many people say that it is just a crowd of starry-eyed idealists who talk about world government. I see the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) sitting opposite me. I have never addressed a question to him before—I consider myself far too humble a Member of this House—but I do so now. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would lend his energy and his great distinction to furthering the idea of amending the


United Nations Charter in order to secure world government and to produce some sort of instrument which would permit the possibility of producing international control of atomic energy.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I did hope that on some occasion the House would have the opportunity, at some time other than the eve of a Recess, to discuss not only the technical details of this matter, but its moral implications. I agree with the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), who opened the debate, that not only does it appear but it is a fact that we are taking a secondary place vis-à-visthe United States as far as the use of the atomic bomb is concerned. I have not the time to look up the quotation, but, if memory serves aright, I believe that when the Prime Minister came back from Washington after his visit to President Truman, the House was given an assurance that we would be consulted if there was any thought of using the atomic bomb.

Mr. Blackburn: No.

Mr. Davies: I think that at this period of civilisation Bertrand Russell's three propositions are worthy of consideration. The United States, Soviet Russia and the British Commonwealth have a duty to civilisation at this climacteric in the history of man—to use a phrase of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—to get together, and they must do so. I believe Russell was right, and that we are faced with the possibility either of (1) the end of human life, or (2) reversion to barbarism in Western Europe, or (3) the unification of the world under world government. That is the point on which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).
I believe the scientists have a moral duty to mankind. I believe the scientists should not be used by politicians or statesmen, no matter how brilliant they are, in keeping so-called nuclear fission secrets. These should be handed on, and I am sure that if civilisation goes on like this both in the United States and here, those secrets will be handed out by men who think they are morally right. It is no good dubbing men Communists because they believe that this is a moral sin against civilisation.
The biological hazards of atomic energy have never been given to the world. At a recent conference at Oxford, the details of which time prevents me from discussing, it was said that it is known that there are possibilities of altering the whole genetical development of mankind. I hope that some day, some men, whether scientists or not, will have the courage to unload these secrets on society. We have a duty to the miners working in uranium mines and with other dangerous commodities. No one knows the injuries those men suffer in the backward areas, and civilised men must not exploit for war, people in the backward areas. I hope that, in agreement with America, an effort will be made to make a rapprochement with the U.S.S.R. on this Satanic weapon of war.

4.22 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I think the House will appreciate that in the time available I cannot possibly enter into all the aspects of this very important subject which have been raised. Moreover it is perhaps a good deal more difficult for me to express opinions on the matter than it was for the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn). I think the most useful thing I can do is to try to explain as factually as possible the position on the issues the hon. Member raised.
During the war, as the House knows, there was a partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom for the development of the atomic weapon and by agreement between the two Governments their efforts, and particularly the actual making of the bomb, were concentrated in North America, for strategic and other reasons. It was natural, indeed inevitable, that during the war the actual manufacture of the new weapon should take place in North America, which was distant from the actual scene of operations and where the resources for rapid development were immeasurably superior to those in this country. The development which took place during the war was in practice a tripartite undertaking. Canada made an outstanding contribution to the joint effort and has since carried out an atomic energy programme with marked success.
By agreement between the three Governments, the nature of the war-time arrangements has never been revealed on grounds of public policy. The House will


recall that on 30th January my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that he would inquire from the United States Government whether they considered that the war-time agreement should now be made public. The United States Government have been consulted in the matter and have informed us that they share the view of His Majesty's Government and could not agree to the publication of the agreement at the present time. This is not, as the House will appreciate, a matter in which His Majesty's Government can act alone, and publication can take place only if both parties to the agreement are prepared to permit it.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman was not quite clear. He implied that His Majesty's Government also did not want publication of this agreement. If they did not want it, why did they approach the United States Government? I was not quite clear whether His Majesty's Government wanted or did not want publication. The hon. Gentleman did not make that point clear.

Mr. Younger: I think that it was made clear on a previous occasion that the Government were reluctant to publish; but in view of the wishes expressed, they consulted their colleagues and found that the United States Government were equally of the opinion that it should not be published. So far as we were concerned, that concluded the matter.
During the war the British effort, in terms of manpower, was deployed in the United States and in Canada. Our scientists and experts, working in close collaboration with the Canadian and American experts, supplied, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the initial impulse and contributed in no small measure to the successful development of atomic weapons. At the same time they gained much valuable experience and knowledge in return. But this experience and knowledge could not be turned quickly to account after the end of the war. The diversion of our scientific resources to North America under the terms of the war-time agreement meant that facilities for production in this field were not developed in the United Kingdom.
The policy of concentrating actual production and development in North America was, as is well known, one which was initiated by the present Leader of the

Opposition, whom I am glad to see present. It is not, of course, a criticism of that policy to say that one cannot have it both ways. When, by a deliberate act of policy, one concentrates one's production resources in one area, one inevitably retards development elsewhere. It takes time to create the highly complicated facilities required for the production of atomic energy.
Since the end of the war, however, there has been rapid and successful development in the United Kingdom atomic energy programme. It is, of course, true that, quite apart from the lead gained by the United States during the war years in production facilities, our resources cannot be compared with those of the United States of America; but within the limits imposed by practical possibilities we have achieved certain remarkable technical advances. As regards the atomic weapon itself, as distinct from developments in other directions of this field, we have advanced further than the country has been led to believe by certain statements that have been made. It is incorrect to say, for example, as has been said, that we do not even know how to make the atomic bomb or indeed have made no progress. It would not be in the public interest, however, to say more on these points at the present time or to give details——

Mr. Churchill: I never made any such statement.

Mr. Younger: I never suggested that the right hon. Gentleman said it.

Mr. Churchill: I only said that you had not made it.

Mr. Blackburn: I said that President Truman admitted specifically in 1945 that we were in full possession of the knowledge of how to produce the atomic bomb. That point has never been raised.

Mr. Younger: I have asked about this, and I have been informed that these statements have been made. I was careful not to say that they were made in the House; I do not think they were. It is true that co-operation between the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America on atomic energy matters is not now regulated by a formal agreement. The position of the United States Administration in many of these matters is, as the hon. Gentleman said,


now governed by legislation, in particular by the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, commonly known as the MacMahon Act. The war-time arrangements have been modified accordingly.
So far as the question of United Kingdom observers at United States bomb tests is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence informed the House, on 14th February last, that it has not been the practice of the United States Government since the passage of that Act to admit non-American observers to atomic energy tests. Nevertheless, as has been announced, the tripartite partnership between ourselves, the United States of America, and Canada continues for certain purposes in the atomic energy field, and we co-operate with those countries under arrangements made from time to time by the Combined Policy Committee which was set up in 1943 by the three Governments, and which meets periodically in Washington.
His Majesty's Government are naturally ready at all times to examine with the United States of America the possibility of extending the area of co-operation in the atomic energy field, and the United States Government are fully aware of our readiness to do so. In this connection, I should like to draw attention to a statement that Mr. Gordon Dean, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, made at a Press Conference on 2nd January, that he was crystallising certain recommendations for a modification of the atomic energy law that would allow the Atomic Energy Commission a rather wider discretion to exchange information and materials with Canada and the United Kingdom, and that he expected to submit these recommendations to Congress in the near future.
This is not an easy subject to discuss in public debate. The secrets of atomic energy, whether they are exploited for civil or for military purposes, are immensely important to those who possess them, and they could be immensely dangerous in the hands of Powers who could not be trusted not to abuse them. It is inevitable, therefore, that the subject should be handled by Governments with the greatest reticence, and security considerations have to be given exceptional weight. T hope the House will accept my

assurance that the Government give very close attention to the whole matter and fully recognise its importance.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: This is a very grave matter, and is certainly one unsuitable to a few moments' debate or discussion. The discussion which we have had this afternoon has not, I think, shed any new light upon the subject at all; nothing new has been said upon the matter. It was raised in the House by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), who is a law unto himself and enjoys a perfect independence, five years ago—nearly six years ago now. He then made a number of statements, which can be read in HANSARD, and I was surprised at the knowledge that he possessed. I took part in the debate, and again a little later, and I said then what I say today, that no publication of the wartime agreement could be made by us without the assent of the United States. That is the position. It was an agreement between President Roosevelt and myself, and unless there is agreement by the United States Government for its publication we are absolutely bound.
Five years have passed, and matters that perhaps, in 1945, stood in one light, stand in a somewhat different light now after five years, which is a long time in this changing world. I am bound to say that I thought that the war-time agreement of 1943 had passed out of current events into history. I also thought that it would do us no harm to have it published. But I stand completely by the fact that we cannot do so without the approval of the United States, and I should not press the Government in any circumstances to do it without the approval of the United States.
The Prime Minister said that he would ask the United States. I have no knowledge of the form which his communications take, but we have been told today that they disagree and do not wish that the agreement should be published. That being so, I personally feel that we are bound to defer to their wishes, because agreements made between two Powers ought not to be made public while they remain on close and, I trust, on ever-growing friendly terms, without the assent of both. That is where I think we must leave the matter this afternoon.

KOREA (38th PARALLEL)

4.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: As the last topic which we shall discuss before the Easter Recess, I want to raise the question of the crossing of the 38th Parallel by United Nations troops. I can only express regret that such a short time is left for us to consider this matter. I shall be as quick as I can in order to enable such hon. Members as may wish to intervene to do so. First, I should like to make clear that I do not propose to discuss the correctness or wrongness of United Nations troops crossing the 38th Parallel. I should, however, like to be assured that the United States Government and all members of the United Nations are clear about what their objectives are in Korea.
I suppose the main point is the United Nations recommendation of 7th October last which said:
The General Assembly recommends that all appropriate steps be taken to ensure conditions of stability throughout Korea.
That was on 7th October last. In January there was a further recommendation, and on 30th January the United Nations Assembly passed the following resolution:
The General Assembly affirms the determination of the United Nations to continue its action in Korea to meet the aggression; and affirms that it continues to be the policy of the United Nations to bring about the cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of United Nations objectives in Korea by peaceful means.
That is the second version of the policy.
At the end of November the Lord Privy Seal, who was then Foreign Secretary, said that it was for the United States Government to ensure that no military action which had political implications should be taken without appropriate conversations with other Governments. That was the third edition, if I may so call it, of the policy. As recently as 12th February, in the House, the Prime Minister said:
… the 38th Parallel ought not to be crossed again until there have been full consultations with the United Nations. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 62.]
Like other hon. Members, I have been able to read in the Press recently that meetings are going on in Washington between ourselves, the Americans and other members of the United Nations who have troops in Korea. I believe that meetings take place twice weekly. Are

those conversations the consultations which the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary had in mind when they made those two statements? With all these varying editions of the strategic policy, added to which we have statements by General Ridgeway and General MacArthur, all differing in some small way, the only result is to confuse the whole issue.
I am not arguing the merits of either case. For what it is worth, my view is that we should advance to such an area where we can hold a defensive position in depth, and that we should remain in that position until our political objectives have been achieved. The military events which have been taking place in Korea in the last two months have made this debate more significant than I ever anticipated it would be. It is today receiving publicity, as it did yesterday, in all the newspapers, and it is likely to do so until such time as we can be quite clear as to exactly what it is intended that we shall do.
I do not think we can help remembering what happened last October, when we ourselves found that we had arrived at a position before we knew exactly where we were going. Our objective, as I think the whole House will agree, is that, first and foremost, we want peace. We want peace by negotiation, for that is the best type of peace. We want a peace which will safeguard the rights and freedoms of an independent Korea. I believe that we must state these aims, our specific strategic aims and objectives in Korea, quite clearly, and I will explain why.
First, I believe that this is a matter not merely for ourselves and the United States, and not merely for ourselves and the other Governments of the United Nations. I think we all remember that the Preamble to the United Nations Charter begins—
We, the peoples of the United Nations"—
rather than—
We, the Governments of the United Nations"—
Our intentions should be made amply clear to these people.
Second, I think the Chinese Government might wrongly, but not unnaturally, make the assumption that we are going to advance again as far as the Yalu River and the Manchurian frontier. It would be a wrong assumption, but not an unnatural one, on their part. I think that,


probably, the Chinese Government feel about Manchuria almost as the French feel and have felt for many years about their Western frontier with Germany. There have been in history four invasions of China, and every one has come from Manchuria. I think that, if we and the United Nations were to make a declaration as to exactly how far it is our intention to proceed, it would force the Chinese into showing their hand to the extent that they would have to indicate by actions and words whether their policy is one of securing their own safety or whether it is one of Communising the whole of the Korean Peninsula.
The wealth of Manchuria, which is so closely bound up with the wealth of China, was, of course, built up by the Japanese very largely out of the natural resources which it possesses. Russia's policy has been to take away Manchuria from the power and control of General Chiang Kai-shek and his Government, but I do not feel that it would be Russia's policy to place that power into the hands of another Government which might at any time become a rival Power in the Far East.
China, we heard from the Minister of Defence yesterday, has suffered very large losses. He spoke of 36,000 in six days. China must know—and this is my main theme—that her integrity and her territory will remain untouched. Russia would, no doubt, like to see her reach the southern tip and finish by pushing us into the sea. So, once again, whatever one thinks and whatever time one considers it, one cannot help reaching the same conclusion that we must, in the interests of ourselves and our Allies, and in the interests, ultimately, of world peace, declare our intentions, and we may then hope to get, sooner rather than later, that peace for which we all hope.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am sure that everybody in the House will feel very grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), whether we all agree with him or not, for having raised this exceedingly important subject in the very few minutes left to us before we make this place a desert, in spite of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
Many months ago, North Korea was condemned as an aggressor by the United Nations, though I must say that I agreed with that decision and still agree with it, in spite of the known fact, as it is now, that there was very considerable provocation on the part of South Korea. It followed from that condemnation that it was the right of the United Nations, indeed, their duty, to counteract that aggression in accordance with both military and political requirements.
I concede at once that military requirements suggest that the United Nations' Forces should occupy Northern Korea at least as far as what is commonly known as the "waist"; but I submit most earnestly to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, in spite of these military requirements, the political requirements of the situation are entirely different. In fact, they dictate a totally different line of approach.
We have now to consider, not only the possibility of a settlement with North Korea, but one also with China. Again, I submit most earnestly that the very best way in which we could possibly go about this policy of attaining a settlement with China as well as with North Korea would be by making a declaration now, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury has just said, making quite clear our position, and by making a gesture of good will to the Chinese people and Government.
I submit that by far the best way of making that gesture of good will and of giving them that assurance now is by making a declaration that, pending the successful conclusion of negotiations, we will not cross the 38th Parallel. I do not even go so far as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury in saying that we should proceed to the waist. I want to stress most particularly to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it should be the 38th Parallel. One of the reasons we should declare now that we will not cross the 38th Parallel is that such a declaration would remove the last shred of justification, if there ever was any, in the Chinese mind for branding us as aggressors for our action in Korea.
Indeed, the very fact that the 38th Parallel is such an indefensible line from the military point of view would add enormous weight to the gesture if we said now that we would not cross that line. On the other hand, if we say now


that we will not go beyond the waist, might not the Chinese people and Government be tempted to think that this is because it is inexpedient militarily to do so? If they believe it is inexpedient now, and that that is the reason why we are not going beyond the waist, may they not also be tempted to suspect that if, subsequently, it becomes militarily expedient to cross the waist, we shall do so? If that be the case, then, indeed, the whole point of our gesture, and certainly its effectiveness, would be lost.
Having said that, may I add that both military and political requirements make it necessary that if and when we make that gesture, as I hope we shall, we should also announce that we will not tolerate the movement of any troops from the North in such a way as to indicate that they intend effectively to penetrate the South, because that would obviously be a renewed aggression. If such a movement of troops were observed, then obviously this House and the United Nations would be entirely justified in giving carte blanche to the military authorities, and in telling them that they must at least incapacitate that enemy from embarking on further aggression.

4.50 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): If I have the leave of the House to speak again, I shall in the very few minutes available try to say as much as I can about this very important topic. I am afraid that, as was the case with our previous discussion, the time is altogether inadequate to cover it as I should have liked. In the course of recent statements, the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I myself, in reply to various Parliamentary Questions, have tried to give such assurances as it has been practicable to give about the intentions of the United Nations forces in this respect.
My right hon. Friend said on one occasion—on the 12th February—that it had been argued that the 38th Parallel should not be crossed again until there had been full consultations and he assured the House that there were full consultations in progress. He pointed out some time ago that the 38th Parallel is not, as indeed has just been said, a military line or, indeed, anything other than an imaginary line on the map. I shall try to elaborate on some of the

answers given on those occasions. The House will see that I am still subject, as I was on previous occasions, to the difficulty that, so long as there are military operations in progress, I must stop short of giving our opposing generals a present of the tactical and strategical intentions of our forces.
The aims of the United Nations in Korea have been set out in various resolutions which are well known to the House, and I shall not take up time by referring to them in detail; but I should just like to say that the broad objective of an independent, unified, democratic Government in Korea, which was referred to in the 7th October resolution, actually amounted to little more than a re-statement of the aims which had been declared at various times from the Cairo Declaration onwards—at the Conference of the Great Powers in Cairo and Potsdam, and then later in the United Nations' resolutions. The United Nations are pursuing those aims by two methods concurrently, first by attempts to get a cease-fire and subsequent negotiations through the efforts of the Good Offices Committee which was set up under the January resolution.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Have the Good Offices Committee met yet?

Mr. Younger: The Good Offices Committee have been at work for several weeks. That is the first method by which we are trying to tackle this problem. Secondly, we are concurrently doing it by military resistance to aggression in Korea. These two methods are, of course, interlocking, and we must not pursue one of them in such a way as to frustrate the other one.

Mr. Hollis: Can we be quite clear about this, that while it is the object of the United Nations to obtain a unified Korea, we do not want the division of the country into two to be permanent?

Mr. Younger: That has never been admitted by the United Nations as a permanent suggestion. It was never mentioned or thought of as being so, at Potsdam or Cairo, or subsequently by the United Nations in their resolutions of 1947, 1948, and 1949, or since the crisis in 1950; and they still consider Korea to be one country—though the means by which we achieve that unification are, of course, another matter.
As I say, these two methods are interlocking. With regard to the suggestion that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that we should stick blindly to the 38th Parallel, we might well prejudice the military resistance to aggression if we were to force the field commander on the spot to conform rigidly to a totally imaginary line which has no significance of any kind, except, as I say, as a line upon the map, and we have to be very careful in any declaration we make not to prejudice our own troops.
It is in face of these considerations that we have to consider the crossing of the 38th Parallel. It is our view that the United Nations commander cannot reasonably be rigidly bound in a tactical sense, as was suggested by my hon. Friend. A general advance into North Korea would, of course, be an act with political as well as military significance, and on that, as we have already stated, agreement has been reached that there shall be no such advance without full consultation between the Governments.
Those consultations take the form referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury—the twice-weekly meetings of the representatives of all the Powers concerned in the operations, and, of course, in addition to that, a great many diplomatic exchanges. I think it is relevant to point out that the decisions we are now discussing are not ones which are set out in the resolutions. They are decisions as to how those resolutions should be implemented. Therefore, it seems quite appropriate from a practical point of view that those decisions should be taken among those members of the United Nations who have actually accepted the responsibility for carrying out the appropriate resolutions—that is to say, by those who are contributing to the United Nations' efforts in Korea.
I know that many people feel that we ought to say—and, indeed, my hon. Friend has suggested this—just how far the United Nations' Forces propose to go. There is talk of making a gesture, but I should think that the time for such a precise indication would be more appropriately given when the Chinese in particular have afforded some indication of their willingness to reach a peaceful settlement. I can say, however, that we

are now considering, with all other Governments concerned, whether it would be desirable to make a further statement on the aims of the United Nations' Forces in Korea. I very much hope that this can be done notwithstanding the security conditions, which, we are all well aware, must be taken into account before any such statement can be made. There must be the fullest consultation with all those contributing to the effort, and also with the Good Offices Committee, whose efforts are of very great importance to us at the present time.
Some reference was made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury to the various statements emanating from generals and other people. I know that various of my hon. Friends have also been concerned at an article written by Mr. Allen on the subject of Korea. Some people take it to be a semi-official statement of United States policy. I am assured that that is not the case. That gentleman is a journalist and, no doubt, for all I know, a very good one, but he is not in any sense an official spokesman. If he was expressing anything other than his own opinion, it was the opinion of some Americans and there are many different sections of American opinion, which hold diverse views on this as upon all other subjects.

Mr. Driberg: One point in that article was that the British Government had been informed of the supposed project of a major invasion of China with American and Chinese Nationalist troops. Could my hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in that at all?

Mr. Younger: There is no truth in that at all. I was not proposing to refer to that, because that does not relate to the 38th Parallel, which was the subject chosen for this debate. It relates to another important aspect of the Far Eastern problem, but there is absolutely no truth in that at all. I have no reason to believe that that is a project of anyone in authority in the United States. It is certainly not the policy of anyone here.
I entirely agree with the way in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury started this debate and expressed the objectives of the United Nations in Korea. These may not be his actual words, but what he said was to the effect that we want to secure by peaceful means conditions in which the Korean people can settle their own destiny and be free and independent.
We have no other aims than those which have already been declared in the United Nations' resolution, and several times during the course of the General Assembly in New York I said that United Nations' troops will not remain in Korea for one moment longer than is necessary for them to achieve our purpose there. That purpose is to seek, first of all, a peaceful method of negotiation. It requires two to negotiate, and we are still waiting. Military action is a necessity which has

been forced upon us by aggression. So long as compulsion continues, we shall not shirk military measures, but we are anxious that they should be terminated at the earliest possible moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 3rd April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.